It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Centralized Power: The Federal Conspiracy
page: 1share:
My central thesis has been that America's political and social elites have been striving to achieve greater amounts of legitimate governmental
authority since the country was founded. Over the last thirty years, there has been a noticeable and documentable trend that demonstrates this covert
agenda.
You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to know that America's undeclared culture war is about to enter a new phase. In mid-February 2005, President Bush appointed the nation's first Director of National Intelligence. In the short run, this might help us fight the war on terror. In the long run, we risk the creation of our own Gestapo.
You can read more about the Director of National Intelligence HERE.
In my published work, I speculate on just how centralized Federal power will be in 2014. As each month passes, a little more of what I wrote comes true. Our elected officials may very well have our best interests in mind, but they're leading us down a path we may regret taking in less than ten years. Bureaucracies are like people. They want to live. Just as we thrive on food, the Judicial, Legislative, and Executive branches of our government thrive on centralized power.
Bush's appointment of a National Intelligence Director (DNI) represents one more step in the centralization of Federal power. This new cabinet officer may very well help us fight the war on terror. This could be just what we need in the short run. In the long run, we may have just given up another small slice of our civil liberties. Because the U.S. Federal government is not known for giving back even the smallest amount of power, we should be worried.
It's not common knowledge, but every cabinet-level official has a staff of considerable size. They've got a lot of people working for them. Inside the beltway, these staff groups jockey for power. Deals are made and 'new authorities' are discovered or created as politics dictates. On the basis of this alone, we should be worried. When Politics becomes more infectious than the Public Service ethic, we should be worried.
More to the point in this case, we should be aware of what the Director of National Intelligence could become. If we keep feeding the Federal beast with more centralized power, the DNI will eventually become a full-blown agency. "The Department of National Intelligence," if such a thing ever comes to be, won't be what you and will I think it should be. If history is any indicator, the implications the term National Intelligence are already clear. In the old Soviet Union, they called it the KGB. In today's Russia, it's called the SVR. Sixty years ago, in Nazi Germany, they called it the Gestapo.
We've already had a small taste of this. For several decades, J. Edgar Hoover ran the FBI with an iron fist. Everything he did was "for our own good," or for the sake of "national security." Thankfully, the excesses of the Red Scare put an end to much of that over-use of centralized power. As harsh as this example is, time has passed, and the voters have forgotten.
Governments always want more power. It's up to us, as voters, to exercise our options to prevent the spread of insidious trends like this one. If we don't stop the growth of centralized power in the Federal bureaucracy, we only have ourselves to blame. If you're still not convinced, keep an eye on the DNI, and see what happens.
In the months ahead, I hope to spark a discussion that will serve to highlight more examples of creeping Federal power and the underhanded steps that are taken to achieve it.
You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to know that America's undeclared culture war is about to enter a new phase. In mid-February 2005, President Bush appointed the nation's first Director of National Intelligence. In the short run, this might help us fight the war on terror. In the long run, we risk the creation of our own Gestapo.
You can read more about the Director of National Intelligence HERE.
In my published work, I speculate on just how centralized Federal power will be in 2014. As each month passes, a little more of what I wrote comes true. Our elected officials may very well have our best interests in mind, but they're leading us down a path we may regret taking in less than ten years. Bureaucracies are like people. They want to live. Just as we thrive on food, the Judicial, Legislative, and Executive branches of our government thrive on centralized power.
Bush's appointment of a National Intelligence Director (DNI) represents one more step in the centralization of Federal power. This new cabinet officer may very well help us fight the war on terror. This could be just what we need in the short run. In the long run, we may have just given up another small slice of our civil liberties. Because the U.S. Federal government is not known for giving back even the smallest amount of power, we should be worried.
It's not common knowledge, but every cabinet-level official has a staff of considerable size. They've got a lot of people working for them. Inside the beltway, these staff groups jockey for power. Deals are made and 'new authorities' are discovered or created as politics dictates. On the basis of this alone, we should be worried. When Politics becomes more infectious than the Public Service ethic, we should be worried.
More to the point in this case, we should be aware of what the Director of National Intelligence could become. If we keep feeding the Federal beast with more centralized power, the DNI will eventually become a full-blown agency. "The Department of National Intelligence," if such a thing ever comes to be, won't be what you and will I think it should be. If history is any indicator, the implications the term National Intelligence are already clear. In the old Soviet Union, they called it the KGB. In today's Russia, it's called the SVR. Sixty years ago, in Nazi Germany, they called it the Gestapo.
We've already had a small taste of this. For several decades, J. Edgar Hoover ran the FBI with an iron fist. Everything he did was "for our own good," or for the sake of "national security." Thankfully, the excesses of the Red Scare put an end to much of that over-use of centralized power. As harsh as this example is, time has passed, and the voters have forgotten.
Governments always want more power. It's up to us, as voters, to exercise our options to prevent the spread of insidious trends like this one. If we don't stop the growth of centralized power in the Federal bureaucracy, we only have ourselves to blame. If you're still not convinced, keep an eye on the DNI, and see what happens.
In the months ahead, I hope to spark a discussion that will serve to highlight more examples of creeping Federal power and the underhanded steps that are taken to achieve it.
Once again, you've caught my attention! I never though of the Director of National Intelligence becoming yet another agency. How many agencies do we
really need?
B.T.W. why again do we need a Director of National Intelligence? This sound supiciously like what theDirector of Central Intelligence was Supposed to be doing.
All they really did is move a lot of things around and add a few things.
This might be a counter point, but what I'm seeing is the same old Bloated Beurocracy wearing a shiny new seal! Nothing impressive about that.
Tim
B.T.W. why again do we need a Director of National Intelligence? This sound supiciously like what theDirector of Central Intelligence was Supposed to be doing.
All they really did is move a lot of things around and add a few things.
This might be a counter point, but what I'm seeing is the same old Bloated Beurocracy wearing a shiny new seal! Nothing impressive about that.
Tim
The big deal here is that the DNI answers to the President, and he/she/it has control over all subordinate agencies. This is, in effect, a
strengthening of the Executive branch. It's already been pointed out by me and others that many of our intelligence agencies are now headed up by
active duty or retired military personnel. that move was undertaken to strengthen the bonds of loyalty to the Executive.
The Bush administration's Unitary Executive theory has been the basis or justification for expanded Presidential authority for the entire time Bush43 has been in office. In a nutshell, Mr. Bush's lawyers contend that a sitting U.s. President actually has more power than they use under normal peace-time conditions.
Among my many concernes, which I have outlined in my published work, I fear that the next President...whoever that is...will merely build on what has already been done to further enhance Federal and Presidential authority.
The Bush administration's Unitary Executive theory has been the basis or justification for expanded Presidential authority for the entire time Bush43 has been in office. In a nutshell, Mr. Bush's lawyers contend that a sitting U.s. President actually has more power than they use under normal peace-time conditions.
Among my many concernes, which I have outlined in my published work, I fear that the next President...whoever that is...will merely build on what has already been done to further enhance Federal and Presidential authority.
I'd like to bring this discussion to your attention in an effort to demonstrate how
many of the topic you see in this forum relate to each other. The fact of the matter is that our civil rights and socisl liberties are under attack
from many different directions. Sometimes, the patters are obvious. Some times, they aren't. Anything worth doing is hard. Being aware of these
attacks, and how they relate to you...matters.
We've recently witnessed the testimony from Kyle Sampson, former Chief of Staff for U.S. Attorney General
Alberto Gonzales. He was questioned by the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 29, 2007. At issue was his role in the firing of eight U.S.
Attorneys.
Republican and Democrat politicians alike got to question Mr. Sampson about his knowledge of A.G. Gonzeles, and the A.G.'s role in those employment terminations. I'll be the first to admit that there is a lot of political theater going on her, but I wanted to bring this matter to your attention for another reason.
Due to a provision in the Revised Patriot Act (2006), the President is authorized to hire and fire U.S. Attorneys at their discretion. Prior to the enactment of this new law, all U.S. Attorneys had to be confirmed by the Senate. Just before the midterm elections in November of 2006, the decison was made to fire eight of 93 U.S. Attorneys. the originators of that decision appear to be the President's cheif political advisor, and the U.S. Attorney General.
I bring this to your attention for just one reason. When you get past the usual partisan flak, you'll see that there is something much more sinister at work. The Revised Patriot Act still holds many surprises for the average uninformed voter. Regardless of the specific provisions which were tacked on to the original law in 2006, all of the new add-ons are meant to further centralize power in to the Executive branch of our government.
While it is possible that Congress may repeal this recently acquired Presidential power, there are still more hidden agenda items in the Revised Patriot Act that will eventually become exposed, or active. The bold way in which the Bush administration has asserted its Unitary Executive doctine makes it clear that we'll see more of this "stealth legislation" in the future.
If it hadn't been for some very amateurish mistakes made by members ofhe bush team, their Democrat opposition might not have felt 'safe' in challenging them. Fundamentally, it can be argued that Gonzales has done nothing illegal. He is, however, guilty of bad manners and political miscalculation. Rather than 'fess up and let this matter blow over, the administration's official policy has been to obfuscate and bluff. This kind of arrogance is only possible when the people in power know that they're trying to be snooty and pull a fast one...because they can.
It's this arrogance of power that continues to make it possible for us to see what they have in mind for us. The question to be asking just now is "what else are they hiding from us?" The A.G. scandal wouldn't exist if somebody had been on the ball. What secrets do they still successfully keep? The only way we'll find out is to be on our guard.
Republican and Democrat politicians alike got to question Mr. Sampson about his knowledge of A.G. Gonzeles, and the A.G.'s role in those employment terminations. I'll be the first to admit that there is a lot of political theater going on her, but I wanted to bring this matter to your attention for another reason.
Due to a provision in the Revised Patriot Act (2006), the President is authorized to hire and fire U.S. Attorneys at their discretion. Prior to the enactment of this new law, all U.S. Attorneys had to be confirmed by the Senate. Just before the midterm elections in November of 2006, the decison was made to fire eight of 93 U.S. Attorneys. the originators of that decision appear to be the President's cheif political advisor, and the U.S. Attorney General.
I bring this to your attention for just one reason. When you get past the usual partisan flak, you'll see that there is something much more sinister at work. The Revised Patriot Act still holds many surprises for the average uninformed voter. Regardless of the specific provisions which were tacked on to the original law in 2006, all of the new add-ons are meant to further centralize power in to the Executive branch of our government.
While it is possible that Congress may repeal this recently acquired Presidential power, there are still more hidden agenda items in the Revised Patriot Act that will eventually become exposed, or active. The bold way in which the Bush administration has asserted its Unitary Executive doctine makes it clear that we'll see more of this "stealth legislation" in the future.
If it hadn't been for some very amateurish mistakes made by members ofhe bush team, their Democrat opposition might not have felt 'safe' in challenging them. Fundamentally, it can be argued that Gonzales has done nothing illegal. He is, however, guilty of bad manners and political miscalculation. Rather than 'fess up and let this matter blow over, the administration's official policy has been to obfuscate and bluff. This kind of arrogance is only possible when the people in power know that they're trying to be snooty and pull a fast one...because they can.
It's this arrogance of power that continues to make it possible for us to see what they have in mind for us. The question to be asking just now is "what else are they hiding from us?" The A.G. scandal wouldn't exist if somebody had been on the ball. What secrets do they still successfully keep? The only way we'll find out is to be on our guard.
Is there a way to get a copy of the "Revised" Patriot Act?
I'm curious to see what else they've added that we weren't told about.
Tim
I'm curious to see what else they've added that we weren't told about.
Tim
You can find most of what you're looking for by using this link. Take your time with
it, there's a lot to plow through.
The scariest thing in this whole document is the idea that this is a "Watered Down" version of the Antiterrorism Act. The scarier question is: what
other "Bills" are they cooking up that we haven't heard about yet?
Tim
Tim
Please have a look at this discussion for further inspiration. When you have time,
use the ATS search function. There's a lot of material here that will educate you. The things they hve planned for us...are scary. That's why
I'm here.
It's being reported by Salon dot-com and other news organizations that a group of Republican Senators met secretly with U.S. Army General David
Patraeus before the current troop surge began in Baghdad. The allegation is that Patraeus was 'told' that he would have until August of 2007 to get
results. The source claims that President Bush would announce a withdrawl date if the Patreus Donctrine wasn't successful.
Source 1
Source 2
There are two things to be concerned with in regards to this "leak." Both are political, and you won't hear this from anyone else except me. First and foremost, you'll need to be aware of what this secretive agenda means for the future of the Republican party. Secondly, you'll need to be aware of what this kind of sneakiness means for the future of the U.S. military. The Bush team has been bashing the Democrats for wanting to "cut and run" from Iraq for the last five years. Time and time again, this President has failed to take advantage of naturally occurring opportunities to de-escalate U.S. forces in Iraq. "Stay the course" has now become a politically correct joke used by Senators, Representatives, and school children when they want to refer to somebody who is being blockheaded or unimaginative.
All good political scholars can tell you that any politician looks for the right time and the right moment to announce victory or defeat. Some politicians can't always tell when its time to give up the fight. Other's can't seem to get it through their heads when they've already won. When this leak occurred, the Bush administration's hypocricy became known. I don't fault them for wanting to pick a withdrawl plan of their choosing, but I do fault them for so two-faced about it.
The simple fact of the matter is that this is just one more goof that didn't have to happened. The Bush team has once against snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. By failing to play it straight, they've left themselves open to uncessary political damage that will handicap their party for years to come.I won't blame voters for what they're going to do in 2008. Like so many conservatives, I too feel betrayed by the party that I once held in such high regard. It's going to be hard to watch their presence in Congress shrivel to become less than it already is. It's going to be even harder to watch a Democrat super-majority take over for the next decade.
The invovlement of General Patraeus in this matter sheds light on something else that you need to be aware of. In my published work, I warned that the U.S. military would soon become much more political than it is today. The simple fact is that party bosses from both sides of the aisle have been tempting military leaders for decades, trying to woo them in to the political arena where they could be exploited. General Patreus seems to have jumped in to D.C. politics with eyes wide open.
It shames me to think that conservatives would be the ones caught in the act of subverting the military for political goals. As citizens, we need to be aware of what this really means for the future of our children. when our military leaders stop looking out for us, and start looking out for what's good for them...we run the risk of being casualties in their battles with politicians. I bring this to your attention because the army is the only thing that will one day stand between you and the politicians who might want you out of the way.
[edit on 4-4-2007 by Justin Oldham]
Source 1
Source 2
There are two things to be concerned with in regards to this "leak." Both are political, and you won't hear this from anyone else except me. First and foremost, you'll need to be aware of what this secretive agenda means for the future of the Republican party. Secondly, you'll need to be aware of what this kind of sneakiness means for the future of the U.S. military. The Bush team has been bashing the Democrats for wanting to "cut and run" from Iraq for the last five years. Time and time again, this President has failed to take advantage of naturally occurring opportunities to de-escalate U.S. forces in Iraq. "Stay the course" has now become a politically correct joke used by Senators, Representatives, and school children when they want to refer to somebody who is being blockheaded or unimaginative.
All good political scholars can tell you that any politician looks for the right time and the right moment to announce victory or defeat. Some politicians can't always tell when its time to give up the fight. Other's can't seem to get it through their heads when they've already won. When this leak occurred, the Bush administration's hypocricy became known. I don't fault them for wanting to pick a withdrawl plan of their choosing, but I do fault them for so two-faced about it.
The simple fact of the matter is that this is just one more goof that didn't have to happened. The Bush team has once against snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. By failing to play it straight, they've left themselves open to uncessary political damage that will handicap their party for years to come.I won't blame voters for what they're going to do in 2008. Like so many conservatives, I too feel betrayed by the party that I once held in such high regard. It's going to be hard to watch their presence in Congress shrivel to become less than it already is. It's going to be even harder to watch a Democrat super-majority take over for the next decade.
The invovlement of General Patraeus in this matter sheds light on something else that you need to be aware of. In my published work, I warned that the U.S. military would soon become much more political than it is today. The simple fact is that party bosses from both sides of the aisle have been tempting military leaders for decades, trying to woo them in to the political arena where they could be exploited. General Patreus seems to have jumped in to D.C. politics with eyes wide open.
It shames me to think that conservatives would be the ones caught in the act of subverting the military for political goals. As citizens, we need to be aware of what this really means for the future of our children. when our military leaders stop looking out for us, and start looking out for what's good for them...we run the risk of being casualties in their battles with politicians. I bring this to your attention because the army is the only thing that will one day stand between you and the politicians who might want you out of the way.
[edit on 4-4-2007 by Justin Oldham]
If this seems a bit off topic I apologize. I don't feel that it is as I believe that all of these things are connected great and small. Are you
familiar with US attorney Johnny Sutton in Texas? He seems to have very close ties to Bush, Gonzales, and the administration. If you are familiar with
him I'm curious as to what your take on him is and the mischief he's been up to.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Hello, Duck. Glad to see you here. I believe you are refering to the matter of Border Patrol agents Compean and Ramos, who were prosecuted by
U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton.
The majoratie opinion seems to be that both men got railroaded. the findings in the case do seem to be "hinky." Given that the Bush administration has had the credibility of its U.S. Attorneys called in to question, I am hopeful that activists will keep this matter under deepest possible investigation.
The simple truth is that not enough people are talking about this and other crimes. If you use the ATS search function, I'm sure will find plenty of discussion threads on this topic. Now that you've posted here, somebody might be kind enough to lend you a hand. Several ATS members are VERY familiar with the details of this and other cases like it. I look forward to hearing from you again.
The majoratie opinion seems to be that both men got railroaded. the findings in the case do seem to be "hinky." Given that the Bush administration has had the credibility of its U.S. Attorneys called in to question, I am hopeful that activists will keep this matter under deepest possible investigation.
The simple truth is that not enough people are talking about this and other crimes. If you use the ATS search function, I'm sure will find plenty of discussion threads on this topic. Now that you've posted here, somebody might be kind enough to lend you a hand. Several ATS members are VERY familiar with the details of this and other cases like it. I look forward to hearing from you again.
Hi Justin
Thank you for your reply. You might think I was relatively new to ATS by looking at the points under my handle. The truth is I'm one of few (perhaps many) that reside here from time to time, mostly staying in the shadows, watching, thinking, waiting, watching some more, thinking again.........
There is alot of hinkiness going on - on many levels. What makes Mr. Sutton stand out recently is the firing of the eight attorneys mess. This scandal at the very least places Mr. Sutton on the correct side of political lines with the Whitehouse. He still has his job in spite of the tempest in a tea cup he created with the border agents. His close ties with Gonzales and the great decider hint at something more. One might be tempted to consider him a tool in the Whitehouse chest. He has been far busier than just the Compean / Ramos case.
He is also seems to be involved with House of Death, and the harrassment and even imprisonment of some other Texas law enforcement. All of these situations make me wonder about what the powers that be are up to on the small scale of things. You can often understand larger events by what someone has done in a smaller event - especially when they don't consider that anyone is watching.
Once again I apologize if this does not seem relevant to a growing centralized power - I believe it might. By studying the tentacles you know the octopus.
It is amazing though how many people, even in ATS, are not awake to much of what is happening all around us. I always appreciate reading your thoughts and thinking about what you have to say.
duckcheney
Thank you for your reply. You might think I was relatively new to ATS by looking at the points under my handle. The truth is I'm one of few (perhaps many) that reside here from time to time, mostly staying in the shadows, watching, thinking, waiting, watching some more, thinking again.........
There is alot of hinkiness going on - on many levels. What makes Mr. Sutton stand out recently is the firing of the eight attorneys mess. This scandal at the very least places Mr. Sutton on the correct side of political lines with the Whitehouse. He still has his job in spite of the tempest in a tea cup he created with the border agents. His close ties with Gonzales and the great decider hint at something more. One might be tempted to consider him a tool in the Whitehouse chest. He has been far busier than just the Compean / Ramos case.
He is also seems to be involved with House of Death, and the harrassment and even imprisonment of some other Texas law enforcement. All of these situations make me wonder about what the powers that be are up to on the small scale of things. You can often understand larger events by what someone has done in a smaller event - especially when they don't consider that anyone is watching.
Once again I apologize if this does not seem relevant to a growing centralized power - I believe it might. By studying the tentacles you know the octopus.
It is amazing though how many people, even in ATS, are not awake to much of what is happening all around us. I always appreciate reading your thoughts and thinking about what you have to say.
duckcheney
Thanks ery much, duck. It takes me a while to post material in this forum becuase I do my homework. I also pay close attention to what is being
talked about on ATS. I want what you see in this forum to be substantiaol. I also want to show you thing that you might not see any where else. As
conspiracies, go the drive for power is the most real of the real than I can think of, and its happening right in ront of us.
In an effort to remain vigilant, I;d like to bring the following matter to your attention which demonstrates that Federal power can be consolidated in
many different ways.
--------------------------------
The following news item is take from the official web site of The House Committee on Government Oversight and Reform.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Administration Oversight
Vice President Exempts His Office from the Requirements for Protecting Classified Information
The Oversight Committee has learned that over the objections of the National Archives, Vice President Cheney exempted his office from the presidential order that establishes government-wide procedures for safeguarding classified national security information. The Vice President asserts that his office is not an “entity within the executive branch.”
As described in a letter from Chairman Waxman to the Vice President, the National Archives protested the Vice President's position in letters written in June 2006 and August 2006. When these letters were ignored, the National Archives wrote to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in January 2007 to seek a resolution of the impasse. The Vice President's staff responded by seeking to abolish the agency within the Archives that is responsible for implementing the President's executive order.
In his letter to the Vice President, Chairman Waxman writes: "I question both the legality and wisdom of your actions. ... [I]t would appear particularly irresponsible to give an office with your history of security breaches an exemption from the safeguards that apply to all other executive branch officials."
A fact sheet prepared by Chairman Waxman describes other instances in which the Vice President's office has sought to avoid oversight and accountability.
Documents referenced from this web source:
Committee Chairman's letter to the Vice President
Letter from the National Archive to the Attorney General
Second letter from the National Archive's to the Vice President's office
First letter from the National Archives to the Vice President's office
Fact Sheet on the Vice President's Efforts to avoid Oversight and Accountability
---------------------------------
You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to see that the Vice President is acting rather boldly and without fear of repercussions. Some of the worst abuses of power are often committed right out in the open. This might be minor, but it does have long-range implications for you and me. If this tactic is not challenged and defeated in the courts, we should expect that in the future...Federal officials at all levels may invoke "the Cheney precendet" when they want to hide their own paperwork trails.
This really is partisan warfare, but its being waged on a procedural battlefield. Part of any politicians 'power' stems from their knowledge of "the rules," and their various exceptions, exemptions, and countermading features. What you see here is nothing less than a cold and deliberate move on the part of a Vice President to claim that a previously made rule doesn't apply to him.
--------------------------------
The following news item is take from the official web site of The House Committee on Government Oversight and Reform.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Administration Oversight
Vice President Exempts His Office from the Requirements for Protecting Classified Information
The Oversight Committee has learned that over the objections of the National Archives, Vice President Cheney exempted his office from the presidential order that establishes government-wide procedures for safeguarding classified national security information. The Vice President asserts that his office is not an “entity within the executive branch.”
As described in a letter from Chairman Waxman to the Vice President, the National Archives protested the Vice President's position in letters written in June 2006 and August 2006. When these letters were ignored, the National Archives wrote to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in January 2007 to seek a resolution of the impasse. The Vice President's staff responded by seeking to abolish the agency within the Archives that is responsible for implementing the President's executive order.
In his letter to the Vice President, Chairman Waxman writes: "I question both the legality and wisdom of your actions. ... [I]t would appear particularly irresponsible to give an office with your history of security breaches an exemption from the safeguards that apply to all other executive branch officials."
A fact sheet prepared by Chairman Waxman describes other instances in which the Vice President's office has sought to avoid oversight and accountability.
Documents referenced from this web source:
Committee Chairman's letter to the Vice President
Letter from the National Archive to the Attorney General
Second letter from the National Archive's to the Vice President's office
First letter from the National Archives to the Vice President's office
Fact Sheet on the Vice President's Efforts to avoid Oversight and Accountability
---------------------------------
You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to see that the Vice President is acting rather boldly and without fear of repercussions. Some of the worst abuses of power are often committed right out in the open. This might be minor, but it does have long-range implications for you and me. If this tactic is not challenged and defeated in the courts, we should expect that in the future...Federal officials at all levels may invoke "the Cheney precendet" when they want to hide their own paperwork trails.
This really is partisan warfare, but its being waged on a procedural battlefield. Part of any politicians 'power' stems from their knowledge of "the rules," and their various exceptions, exemptions, and countermading features. What you see here is nothing less than a cold and deliberate move on the part of a Vice President to claim that a previously made rule doesn't apply to him.
In an effort to bring you more proof that backs up my assertions that the politicians in D.C. are trying to gather more power, I'd like to show you
the following news item.
June 21, 2007 9:39 p.m. PT
Cheney: Office not part of executive branch
Assertion made as part of data battle
By JULIA MALONE
COX NEWS SERVICE
WASHINGTON -- Dick Cheney, who has wielded extraordinary executive power as he transformed the image of the vice presidency, is asserting that his office is not actually part of the executive branch.
In a simmering dispute with the National Archives that heated up Thursday, Cheney has long maintained that he does not have to comply with an executive order on safeguarding classified information because, in fact, his office is part of the legislature.
Further, Cheney's office tried to abolish the oversight agency involved, according to a Democratic congressman.
Cheney, whose single constitutional duty is to serve as president of the Senate, holds that the vice president's office is not an "entity within the executive branch" and therefore not subject to annual reporting or periodic on-site inspections under the 1995 executive order, which was updated four years ago by President Bush.
The vice president has been refusing to cooperate with the National Archives office assigned to oversee the handling of classified data since 2003.
"We are confident that we are conducting the office properly under the law," vice presidential spokeswoman Lea Anne McBride said.
Democrats, to be sure, took the opposite view. House Oversight Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, in a letter posted on the Internet Thursday, told Cheney it was "irresponsible" to reject security oversight.
"Your office may have the worst record in the executive branch for safeguarding classified information," the California Democrat wrote.
He cited the conviction of former top Cheney aide Lewis "Scooter" Libby for lying in the investigation into who leaked the identity of a CIA operative.
Waxman said Cheney's office, in a move that "could be construed as retaliation," had tried to abolish the Information Security Oversight Office, the division of the National Archives set up to enforce safeguards for classified information in executive agencies.
Waxman said the oversight office head, William Leonard, told congressional investigators that the vice president's staff had not succeeded.
The National Archives appealed its case for oversight of Cheney's classified information practices to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales last January. Gonzales has not responded.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., when asked about Cheney's claim to be part of the legislative branch, quipped: "I always thought that he was president of this administration."
Constitutional experts were startled at the notion that the vice presidency isn't in the executive branch.
"The vice president is saying he doesn't have to follow the orders of the president," said Garrett Epps, a law professor at the University of Oregon. "That's a very interesting proposition."
Epps said the lines have not been drawn that clearly: "The vice president spans, in some ways, the branches of government."
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino brushed off questions about what branch of the government the vice president resides in, saying she doesn't know enough about the issue.
Susan Low Bloch, a constitutional professor at Georgetown University Law Center, called Cheney's position a "novel claim." Although most people think of vice presidents as executive officials, she added that it's really "a bit of a hybrid" role.
As vice president, Cheney receives his paycheck from the U.S. Senate, which also pays the salaries of much of his staff. However, he also sits in Cabinet meetings and has an office at the White House.
Cheney's lawyers have used his role as adviser to the president to fend off a lawsuit seeking the names of energy executives who advised him on an energy task force.
Paul Orfanedes, who heads litigation for Judicial Watch, a non-partisan group that joined in the lawsuit, said the vice president's claim "seems most disingenuous."
-------------------------------
If you're looking for a real conspiracy, this would be it. Mr. Cheney has exerted undue influence in Washington since he became Vice President in 2000. The fact that he sees fit to have this fight right out in the open should tell you something about his level of confidence, and the strength of his position.
They serve us, or we WILL serve them.
June 21, 2007 9:39 p.m. PT
Cheney: Office not part of executive branch
Assertion made as part of data battle
By JULIA MALONE
COX NEWS SERVICE
WASHINGTON -- Dick Cheney, who has wielded extraordinary executive power as he transformed the image of the vice presidency, is asserting that his office is not actually part of the executive branch.
In a simmering dispute with the National Archives that heated up Thursday, Cheney has long maintained that he does not have to comply with an executive order on safeguarding classified information because, in fact, his office is part of the legislature.
Further, Cheney's office tried to abolish the oversight agency involved, according to a Democratic congressman.
Cheney, whose single constitutional duty is to serve as president of the Senate, holds that the vice president's office is not an "entity within the executive branch" and therefore not subject to annual reporting or periodic on-site inspections under the 1995 executive order, which was updated four years ago by President Bush.
The vice president has been refusing to cooperate with the National Archives office assigned to oversee the handling of classified data since 2003.
"We are confident that we are conducting the office properly under the law," vice presidential spokeswoman Lea Anne McBride said.
Democrats, to be sure, took the opposite view. House Oversight Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, in a letter posted on the Internet Thursday, told Cheney it was "irresponsible" to reject security oversight.
"Your office may have the worst record in the executive branch for safeguarding classified information," the California Democrat wrote.
He cited the conviction of former top Cheney aide Lewis "Scooter" Libby for lying in the investigation into who leaked the identity of a CIA operative.
Waxman said Cheney's office, in a move that "could be construed as retaliation," had tried to abolish the Information Security Oversight Office, the division of the National Archives set up to enforce safeguards for classified information in executive agencies.
Waxman said the oversight office head, William Leonard, told congressional investigators that the vice president's staff had not succeeded.
The National Archives appealed its case for oversight of Cheney's classified information practices to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales last January. Gonzales has not responded.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., when asked about Cheney's claim to be part of the legislative branch, quipped: "I always thought that he was president of this administration."
Constitutional experts were startled at the notion that the vice presidency isn't in the executive branch.
"The vice president is saying he doesn't have to follow the orders of the president," said Garrett Epps, a law professor at the University of Oregon. "That's a very interesting proposition."
Epps said the lines have not been drawn that clearly: "The vice president spans, in some ways, the branches of government."
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino brushed off questions about what branch of the government the vice president resides in, saying she doesn't know enough about the issue.
Susan Low Bloch, a constitutional professor at Georgetown University Law Center, called Cheney's position a "novel claim." Although most people think of vice presidents as executive officials, she added that it's really "a bit of a hybrid" role.
As vice president, Cheney receives his paycheck from the U.S. Senate, which also pays the salaries of much of his staff. However, he also sits in Cabinet meetings and has an office at the White House.
Cheney's lawyers have used his role as adviser to the president to fend off a lawsuit seeking the names of energy executives who advised him on an energy task force.
Paul Orfanedes, who heads litigation for Judicial Watch, a non-partisan group that joined in the lawsuit, said the vice president's claim "seems most disingenuous."
-------------------------------
If you're looking for a real conspiracy, this would be it. Mr. Cheney has exerted undue influence in Washington since he became Vice President in 2000. The fact that he sees fit to have this fight right out in the open should tell you something about his level of confidence, and the strength of his position.
They serve us, or we WILL serve them.
I have been told that comedy has a way of making a point in its own unique way. With that in mind, I'd like to show you the following
news item which really does prove that Truth is stranger than fiction. Not even I could make this
up.
-------------------------------
"This is a glitch, it is only a glitch: Warnings go out over the air, but there's no emergency"
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
By David Adam
Herald-Whig Staff Writer
[Quincy, Mass.]
A national emergency alert announced on local television and radio stations throughout Illinois this morning appears to be the result of a human error in Washington, D.C.
Four alerts were heard — at 7:33 a.m., 7:49 a.m., 7:55 a.m. and 8:07 a.m. The alerts came from the National Emergency Alert System, which originates its signal with the Illinois Emergency Management Agency in Springfield.
With each alert, a message scrolled across television screens that read, "The Emergency Action Notification Network has issued an emergency action notification for the United States, beginning at ..."
Radio stations and TV stations both had the warning tone for about a minute, but radio stations had no audio. The alerts are designed to override the local audio and video in case of a national emergency.
Jim Lawrence, director of operations and engineering for WGEM in Quincy, said he talked this morning with representatives with IEMA who assured him there was no emergency.
"Apparently, there's some kind of test being run that shouldn't be going out," Lawrence said. "(IEMA) is getting besieged with phone calls from all over the state."
Lawrence said a representative from Chicago with the Illinois Emergency Alert System told him that he believed the glitch was part of a test of satellite receivers linking state emerency management agencies with the Federal Emergency Management Agency in Washington, D.C.
Rather than a test code being sent to the satellites, Lawrence said he was told that the presidential code was sent instead.
WGEM is the originating source for the alerts, which are then sent to radio stations in West-Central Illinois. After the fourth alert, Lawrence disabled the system.
"We've had probably 50 calls this morning at least, and we're still getting them," he said.
Mike Moyers, general manager for STARadio in Quincy, says neither KGRC, licensed in Hannibal, Mo., or KZZK, licensed in New London, Mo., received the alerts, but the three local stations licensed in Illinois — WCOY, WTAD and WQCY — did.
Moyers said he went on WTAD at about 8 this morning to let listeners know there was no emergency.
"Our live lines were going wild, and we had some people who were alarmed," he said. "The upside of all of this is, well, at least we know it works."
A press release sent late this morning by IEMA said the satellite warning system was installed in Illinois on Monday. The federal government hoped to conduct a test of the new system this morning, but rather than being an internal test, the message was sent to broadcast stations.
"At this time, we don't know why the federal government used a 'hot' or active code rather than a test cost when they sent out this test message," said Andrew Velasquez III, director of IEMA, in the press release.
The EAS system replaced the former Emergency Broadcast System. It can be activated by the federal government, by states or by the National Weather Service.
Lawrence says the IEMA system does normal weekly tests — WGEM does one of its own, and IEMA does one. Also, IEMA does a test on the first Tuesday of each month at varying times. Each of those alerts has audio that tells listeners that it is a test.
On the IEMA Web page, its mission statement reads, "To protect the State of Illinois through integrated approaches of Emergency Management and Homeland Security. To prepare for, respond to, mitigate against, and recover from emergencies and disasters, or acts of terrorism."
-------------------------------
"This is a glitch, it is only a glitch: Warnings go out over the air, but there's no emergency"
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
By David Adam
Herald-Whig Staff Writer
[Quincy, Mass.]
A national emergency alert announced on local television and radio stations throughout Illinois this morning appears to be the result of a human error in Washington, D.C.
Four alerts were heard — at 7:33 a.m., 7:49 a.m., 7:55 a.m. and 8:07 a.m. The alerts came from the National Emergency Alert System, which originates its signal with the Illinois Emergency Management Agency in Springfield.
With each alert, a message scrolled across television screens that read, "The Emergency Action Notification Network has issued an emergency action notification for the United States, beginning at ..."
Radio stations and TV stations both had the warning tone for about a minute, but radio stations had no audio. The alerts are designed to override the local audio and video in case of a national emergency.
Jim Lawrence, director of operations and engineering for WGEM in Quincy, said he talked this morning with representatives with IEMA who assured him there was no emergency.
"Apparently, there's some kind of test being run that shouldn't be going out," Lawrence said. "(IEMA) is getting besieged with phone calls from all over the state."
Lawrence said a representative from Chicago with the Illinois Emergency Alert System told him that he believed the glitch was part of a test of satellite receivers linking state emerency management agencies with the Federal Emergency Management Agency in Washington, D.C.
Rather than a test code being sent to the satellites, Lawrence said he was told that the presidential code was sent instead.
WGEM is the originating source for the alerts, which are then sent to radio stations in West-Central Illinois. After the fourth alert, Lawrence disabled the system.
"We've had probably 50 calls this morning at least, and we're still getting them," he said.
Mike Moyers, general manager for STARadio in Quincy, says neither KGRC, licensed in Hannibal, Mo., or KZZK, licensed in New London, Mo., received the alerts, but the three local stations licensed in Illinois — WCOY, WTAD and WQCY — did.
Moyers said he went on WTAD at about 8 this morning to let listeners know there was no emergency.
"Our live lines were going wild, and we had some people who were alarmed," he said. "The upside of all of this is, well, at least we know it works."
A press release sent late this morning by IEMA said the satellite warning system was installed in Illinois on Monday. The federal government hoped to conduct a test of the new system this morning, but rather than being an internal test, the message was sent to broadcast stations.
"At this time, we don't know why the federal government used a 'hot' or active code rather than a test cost when they sent out this test message," said Andrew Velasquez III, director of IEMA, in the press release.
The EAS system replaced the former Emergency Broadcast System. It can be activated by the federal government, by states or by the National Weather Service.
Lawrence says the IEMA system does normal weekly tests — WGEM does one of its own, and IEMA does one. Also, IEMA does a test on the first Tuesday of each month at varying times. Each of those alerts has audio that tells listeners that it is a test.
On the IEMA Web page, its mission statement reads, "To protect the State of Illinois through integrated approaches of Emergency Management and Homeland Security. To prepare for, respond to, mitigate against, and recover from emergencies and disasters, or acts of terrorism."
It's been said that bad politics is bad politics, no matter which party you belong to. Much of what the bush administration is doing as I type this
in could be perpetrated by Democrats, too. Some ATS members have called me "too right-wing." Well...I'd like to show you a very left wing media
source that states many of the same arguments I've made...but with more specifics, as they relate to the battle over subpoeneas.
The following blog entry from The Daily Kos comes from a very liberal source. Please note the date on this item, so that you can see just how long this debate has been going on.
Looking ahead: what happens when the subpoenas are defied?
by Kagro X
Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 11:28:21 AM PDT
Last week, both the House and Senate Judiciary committees approved the issuance of -- but have not yet issued -- subpoenas compelling the testimony of Karl Rove, Harriet Miers and others who are or were among George W. Bush's inner circle during the decision-making on the firing of the eight dismissed U.S. Attorneys. Bush, for his part, has signaled his intention to have his aides defy those subpoenas, saying he'd fight it out in court to the bitter end.
But what kind of battle can we expect over these subpoenas? How might such a fight turn out? What issues would be raised? And are the courts the only arena in which the questions might be settled?
The AP's Matt Apuzzo examines the risks:
President Bush has tried for years to reassert a White House right to keep secrets from Congress. Now he must decide how far he wants to go to keep aides from testifying about the firing of federal prosecutors.
If he claims executive privilege and the dispute ends up in court, the fight with Congress will be refereed by a judicial branch that recently has not been kind to the presidency in fights over subpoenas. Lawmakers, meanwhile, risk seeing a judge permanently curtail their power to summon presidential aides to Capitol Hill.
That's a high stakes game. So high, in fact, that it's precisely the sort of case the courts tend to punt, under the so-called "political question doctrine." Political questions are those the courts will -- at least initially -- refuse to decide, preferring to leave the outcome in the hands of the political branches (the executive and legislative), on the theory that the power to decide them resides more properly with those who derive their authority from the voters.
Indeed, Apuzzo's article illustrates the point with this comment:
"I don't think anyone would want this in court. If anything is to be politically settled, it's this one," said Louis Fisher, a Library of Congress specialist on constitutional and an expert on presidential powers.
Fisher's "anyone" could refer just as easily to any or all of the three branches. Both the executive and the legislature have substantial powers at risk, while the judicial branch would simply want no part in settling the question.
How do we know this about the courts? Because that's exactly what they did the last time such a case was brought. And that case is instructive today.
The last time the Congress actually voted to hold an executive branch official in contempt of Congress was in the 1982 case of EPA Administrator Anne Gorsuch Burford. Gorsuch (who was later remarried, to Bureau of Land Management head Robert Burford) was found in contempt by a House vote of 259-105 (with 55 Republicans voting in favor). The charges were, in keeping with practice in statutory contempt cases, referred to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia for prosecution.
And a lightbulb switches on! The actual prosecution of contempt of Congress charges is the responsibility of a U.S. Attorney.
What an extraordinary piece of bad luck, given the current situation!
So now, obviously, the most recent case of contempt of Congress brought against a high-ranking administration official takes on added importance as precedent. Does it not? And just what happened in that case? (PDF)
The Justice Department, anticipating the House vote, moved quickly: "Immediately after the House vote and prior to the delivery of the contempt citation," the department chose not to prosecute the case. [Notes omitted]
Surprise!
But that's not all:
Instead, it asked a district court to declare the House action an unconstitutional intrusion into the President’s authority to withhold information from Congress.
Stanley S. Harris, responsible for bringing the case to a grand jury, listed his name on the Justice Department complaint and advised Congress that "it would not be appropriate for me to consider bringing this matter before a grand jury until the civil action has been resolved."
The Justice Department occupied an unusual ethical position. First it had advised Gorsuch to withhold the documents, and now it decided not to prosecute her for adhering to the department’s legal analysis. In court, the department argued that the contempt action marked an "unwarranted burden on executive privilege" and an "interference with the executive’s ability to carry out the laws." [Notes omitted]
So, what happened in court?
The court dismissed the government’s suit on the ground that judicial intervention in executive-legislative disputes "should be delayed until all possibilities for settlement have been exhausted." The court urged both parties to devote their energies to compromise and cooperation, not confrontation. [Notes omitted]
Dismissed. Because the case turned on a political question.
So Congress was right? Right? Not according to the Reagan administration:
Following the Gorsuch contempt, the Office of Legal Counsel wrote an opinion on May 30, 1984, concluding that as a matter of statutory interpretation and separation of powers analysis, a U.S. Attorney is not required to bring a congressional contempt citation to a grand jury when the citation is directed against an executive official who is carrying out the President’s decision to invoke executive privilege. [Notes omitted, and emphasis supplied]
----------------------------
You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to know what's at stake in this "Bush gambit." This showdown over subpoenas can have lasting repercussions.
There's another blog entry which comes from The Next Hurrah, which is another liberal source that
helps to summarize what many ATS members are worried about.
March 27, 2007
Dusting off "Inherent Contempt"
by Kagro X
Yesterday, we discussed the fact that the standard, statutory contempt of Congress procedure was probably inadequate to the task of enforcing the Democratic Congress' hard-won subpoena power:
The last time the Congress actually voted to hold an executive branch official in contempt of Congress was in the 1982 case of EPA Administrator Anne Gorsuch Burford. Gorsuch (who was later remarried, to Bureau of Land Management head Robert Burford) was found in contempt by a House vote of 259-105 (with 55 Republicans voting in favor). The charges were, in keeping with practice in statutory contempt cases, referred to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia for prosecution.
And a lightbulb switches on! The actual prosecution of contempt of Congress charges is the responsibility of a U.S. Attorney.
What an extraordinary piece of bad luck, given the current situation!
A few astute commenters observed that Congress has another weapon in its arsenal for backing up the subpoena power: the long-dormant "inherent contempt" process, described below in the Congressional Research Service's "Congressional Oversight Manual" (PDF):
Under the inherent contempt power, the individual is brought before the House or Senate by the Sergeant-at-Arms, tried at the bar of the body, and can be imprisoned. The purpose of the imprisonment or other sanction may be either punitive or coercive. Thus, the witness can be imprisoned for a specified period of time as punishment, or for an indefinite period (but not, at least in the case of the House, beyond the adjournment of a session of the Congress) until he agrees to comply. The inherent contempt power has been recognized by the Supreme Court as inextricably related to Congress’s constitutionally-based power to investigate.
The most obvious benefit of inherent contempt is that it's conducted entirely "in-house," that is, entirely on the authority of the legislative branch. The most obvious drawback? Spending time on a trial. Well, that and the scene of having the Sergeant at Arms and the Capitol Police physically barred from entering the White House to arrest those who've defied subpoenas.
But is there another choice? What other power, besides impeachment, does the Congress have in its arsenal to enforce the "subpoena power" we were all told this election was about? There are no other direct options, only oblique approaches to using indirect leverage.
The next question, then, is whether or not anybody in Congress has bothered to think things through to this point, and begin preparing for this possibility. And here, I finally have some good news.
Rep. Brad Miller of North Carolina, in his capacity as chairman of the Science committee's Investigations and Oversight panel, has encountered the same sort of intransigence from the Bush "administration" that is threatened over the investigation into the U.S. Attorney firings. Only in the case of his investigation, involving the Department of Education, the "administration" hasn't even really done him the courtesy of making up an excuse for why they're not providing the requested documents. They're just not doing it.
So as Rep. Miller has become increasingly pessimistic about the chances that the "administration" will relent in his case, he's been consulting the same Congressional Oversight Manual, and was dismayed to learn that the enforcement options are indeed quite limited. Inherent contempt, he's discovered, is perhaps the only way Congress will be able to enforce its subpoena power with this "administration," and he's been talking with CRS experts to explore how a modern inherent contempt procedure might be established. Even better, he's been sharing that information with Rep. Linda Sanchez, chair of the Judiciary committee's Commercial and Administrative Law panel that's handling the subpoenas in the U.S. Attorneys matter.
Unfortunately, the current thinking among most Members of Congress is that the subpoena showdown will be settled in court. But as we discussed yesterday, that's highly unlikely. Rather, it seems most probably that the courts will dismiss such a case under the "political question doctrine," as they did in the Burford case in 1982.
Is there a stronger and more direct signal to send to the White House that the Congress is serious about its oversight authority than the one that would come from the House taking the time to dust off the inherent contempt concept, and establish a modern procedure for it? If so, I can't think of it.
At the very least, it's going to pay to be prepared sooner rather than later. Once those subpoenas are issued, it won't be long before we know precisely what the White House plans to do when the chips are down. And if we're sitting around looking at one another when the White House signals its final defiance, we're likely to lose a lot of momentum.
Let's face it: if the "administration" simply refuses to budge, the Congress either has to fold its tent and go home, or enforce on its own authority the subpoena power the American people voted for. Given that we've reached this impasse -- and we knew it was coming -- over an investigation into the hyper-partisan and hyper-politicized nature of the U.S. Attorneys, inherent contempt proceedings would appear to be the first and most direct resort of Congress in enforcing its mandate.
It would also appear to be the last stop short of impeachment. And with that remedy currently "off the table," Congress needs to speak -- and speak soon -- about how it intends to protect its prerogatives.
-----------------------------
I'm showing you the source in it's entirety, with links to back it up, so there's no plagarism here. Again, take note of those post dates. March. ATS membes hve been on the cutting edge of this for a while now, but some are still not aware of the back story.
What you see here is nothing short of an all out battle to break the Congress. If the Bush team succeeds, you won't need to talk about a conspiracy theory because you won't be debating what-if's. You'll be talking about what actually happened...after the fact.
The following blog entry from The Daily Kos comes from a very liberal source. Please note the date on this item, so that you can see just how long this debate has been going on.
Looking ahead: what happens when the subpoenas are defied?
by Kagro X
Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 11:28:21 AM PDT
Last week, both the House and Senate Judiciary committees approved the issuance of -- but have not yet issued -- subpoenas compelling the testimony of Karl Rove, Harriet Miers and others who are or were among George W. Bush's inner circle during the decision-making on the firing of the eight dismissed U.S. Attorneys. Bush, for his part, has signaled his intention to have his aides defy those subpoenas, saying he'd fight it out in court to the bitter end.
But what kind of battle can we expect over these subpoenas? How might such a fight turn out? What issues would be raised? And are the courts the only arena in which the questions might be settled?
The AP's Matt Apuzzo examines the risks:
President Bush has tried for years to reassert a White House right to keep secrets from Congress. Now he must decide how far he wants to go to keep aides from testifying about the firing of federal prosecutors.
If he claims executive privilege and the dispute ends up in court, the fight with Congress will be refereed by a judicial branch that recently has not been kind to the presidency in fights over subpoenas. Lawmakers, meanwhile, risk seeing a judge permanently curtail their power to summon presidential aides to Capitol Hill.
That's a high stakes game. So high, in fact, that it's precisely the sort of case the courts tend to punt, under the so-called "political question doctrine." Political questions are those the courts will -- at least initially -- refuse to decide, preferring to leave the outcome in the hands of the political branches (the executive and legislative), on the theory that the power to decide them resides more properly with those who derive their authority from the voters.
Indeed, Apuzzo's article illustrates the point with this comment:
"I don't think anyone would want this in court. If anything is to be politically settled, it's this one," said Louis Fisher, a Library of Congress specialist on constitutional and an expert on presidential powers.
Fisher's "anyone" could refer just as easily to any or all of the three branches. Both the executive and the legislature have substantial powers at risk, while the judicial branch would simply want no part in settling the question.
How do we know this about the courts? Because that's exactly what they did the last time such a case was brought. And that case is instructive today.
The last time the Congress actually voted to hold an executive branch official in contempt of Congress was in the 1982 case of EPA Administrator Anne Gorsuch Burford. Gorsuch (who was later remarried, to Bureau of Land Management head Robert Burford) was found in contempt by a House vote of 259-105 (with 55 Republicans voting in favor). The charges were, in keeping with practice in statutory contempt cases, referred to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia for prosecution.
And a lightbulb switches on! The actual prosecution of contempt of Congress charges is the responsibility of a U.S. Attorney.
What an extraordinary piece of bad luck, given the current situation!
So now, obviously, the most recent case of contempt of Congress brought against a high-ranking administration official takes on added importance as precedent. Does it not? And just what happened in that case? (PDF)
The Justice Department, anticipating the House vote, moved quickly: "Immediately after the House vote and prior to the delivery of the contempt citation," the department chose not to prosecute the case. [Notes omitted]
Surprise!
But that's not all:
Instead, it asked a district court to declare the House action an unconstitutional intrusion into the President’s authority to withhold information from Congress.
Stanley S. Harris, responsible for bringing the case to a grand jury, listed his name on the Justice Department complaint and advised Congress that "it would not be appropriate for me to consider bringing this matter before a grand jury until the civil action has been resolved."
The Justice Department occupied an unusual ethical position. First it had advised Gorsuch to withhold the documents, and now it decided not to prosecute her for adhering to the department’s legal analysis. In court, the department argued that the contempt action marked an "unwarranted burden on executive privilege" and an "interference with the executive’s ability to carry out the laws." [Notes omitted]
So, what happened in court?
The court dismissed the government’s suit on the ground that judicial intervention in executive-legislative disputes "should be delayed until all possibilities for settlement have been exhausted." The court urged both parties to devote their energies to compromise and cooperation, not confrontation. [Notes omitted]
Dismissed. Because the case turned on a political question.
So Congress was right? Right? Not according to the Reagan administration:
Following the Gorsuch contempt, the Office of Legal Counsel wrote an opinion on May 30, 1984, concluding that as a matter of statutory interpretation and separation of powers analysis, a U.S. Attorney is not required to bring a congressional contempt citation to a grand jury when the citation is directed against an executive official who is carrying out the President’s decision to invoke executive privilege. [Notes omitted, and emphasis supplied]
----------------------------
You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to know what's at stake in this "Bush gambit." This showdown over subpoenas can have lasting repercussions.
There's another blog entry which comes from The Next Hurrah, which is another liberal source that
helps to summarize what many ATS members are worried about.
March 27, 2007
Dusting off "Inherent Contempt"
by Kagro X
Yesterday, we discussed the fact that the standard, statutory contempt of Congress procedure was probably inadequate to the task of enforcing the Democratic Congress' hard-won subpoena power:
The last time the Congress actually voted to hold an executive branch official in contempt of Congress was in the 1982 case of EPA Administrator Anne Gorsuch Burford. Gorsuch (who was later remarried, to Bureau of Land Management head Robert Burford) was found in contempt by a House vote of 259-105 (with 55 Republicans voting in favor). The charges were, in keeping with practice in statutory contempt cases, referred to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia for prosecution.
And a lightbulb switches on! The actual prosecution of contempt of Congress charges is the responsibility of a U.S. Attorney.
What an extraordinary piece of bad luck, given the current situation!
A few astute commenters observed that Congress has another weapon in its arsenal for backing up the subpoena power: the long-dormant "inherent contempt" process, described below in the Congressional Research Service's "Congressional Oversight Manual" (PDF):
Under the inherent contempt power, the individual is brought before the House or Senate by the Sergeant-at-Arms, tried at the bar of the body, and can be imprisoned. The purpose of the imprisonment or other sanction may be either punitive or coercive. Thus, the witness can be imprisoned for a specified period of time as punishment, or for an indefinite period (but not, at least in the case of the House, beyond the adjournment of a session of the Congress) until he agrees to comply. The inherent contempt power has been recognized by the Supreme Court as inextricably related to Congress’s constitutionally-based power to investigate.
The most obvious benefit of inherent contempt is that it's conducted entirely "in-house," that is, entirely on the authority of the legislative branch. The most obvious drawback? Spending time on a trial. Well, that and the scene of having the Sergeant at Arms and the Capitol Police physically barred from entering the White House to arrest those who've defied subpoenas.
But is there another choice? What other power, besides impeachment, does the Congress have in its arsenal to enforce the "subpoena power" we were all told this election was about? There are no other direct options, only oblique approaches to using indirect leverage.
The next question, then, is whether or not anybody in Congress has bothered to think things through to this point, and begin preparing for this possibility. And here, I finally have some good news.
Rep. Brad Miller of North Carolina, in his capacity as chairman of the Science committee's Investigations and Oversight panel, has encountered the same sort of intransigence from the Bush "administration" that is threatened over the investigation into the U.S. Attorney firings. Only in the case of his investigation, involving the Department of Education, the "administration" hasn't even really done him the courtesy of making up an excuse for why they're not providing the requested documents. They're just not doing it.
So as Rep. Miller has become increasingly pessimistic about the chances that the "administration" will relent in his case, he's been consulting the same Congressional Oversight Manual, and was dismayed to learn that the enforcement options are indeed quite limited. Inherent contempt, he's discovered, is perhaps the only way Congress will be able to enforce its subpoena power with this "administration," and he's been talking with CRS experts to explore how a modern inherent contempt procedure might be established. Even better, he's been sharing that information with Rep. Linda Sanchez, chair of the Judiciary committee's Commercial and Administrative Law panel that's handling the subpoenas in the U.S. Attorneys matter.
Unfortunately, the current thinking among most Members of Congress is that the subpoena showdown will be settled in court. But as we discussed yesterday, that's highly unlikely. Rather, it seems most probably that the courts will dismiss such a case under the "political question doctrine," as they did in the Burford case in 1982.
Is there a stronger and more direct signal to send to the White House that the Congress is serious about its oversight authority than the one that would come from the House taking the time to dust off the inherent contempt concept, and establish a modern procedure for it? If so, I can't think of it.
At the very least, it's going to pay to be prepared sooner rather than later. Once those subpoenas are issued, it won't be long before we know precisely what the White House plans to do when the chips are down. And if we're sitting around looking at one another when the White House signals its final defiance, we're likely to lose a lot of momentum.
Let's face it: if the "administration" simply refuses to budge, the Congress either has to fold its tent and go home, or enforce on its own authority the subpoena power the American people voted for. Given that we've reached this impasse -- and we knew it was coming -- over an investigation into the hyper-partisan and hyper-politicized nature of the U.S. Attorneys, inherent contempt proceedings would appear to be the first and most direct resort of Congress in enforcing its mandate.
It would also appear to be the last stop short of impeachment. And with that remedy currently "off the table," Congress needs to speak -- and speak soon -- about how it intends to protect its prerogatives.
-----------------------------
I'm showing you the source in it's entirety, with links to back it up, so there's no plagarism here. Again, take note of those post dates. March. ATS membes hve been on the cutting edge of this for a while now, but some are still not aware of the back story.
What you see here is nothing short of an all out battle to break the Congress. If the Bush team succeeds, you won't need to talk about a conspiracy theory because you won't be debating what-if's. You'll be talking about what actually happened...after the fact.
The following item from yet another liberal news source demonstrates one
more way in which Federal officials are consolodating power, which proves my point that isn't some right-wing "thing."
FBI Proposes Building Network of U.S. Informants
July 25, 2007 1:01 PM
Justin Rood Reports:
The FBI is taking cues from the CIA to recruit thousands of covert informants in the United States as part of a sprawling effort to boost its intelligence capabilities.
According to a recent unclassified report to Congress, the FBI expects its informants to provide secrets about possible terrorists and foreign spies, although some may also be expected to aid with criminal investigations, in the tradition of law enforcement confidential informants. The FBI did not respond to requests for comment on this story.
The FBI said the push was driven by a 2004 directive from President Bush ordering the bureau to improve its counterterrorism efforts by boosting its human intelligence capabilities.
The aggressive push for more secret informants appears to be part of a new effort to grow its intelligence and counterterrorism efforts. Other recent proposals include expanding its collection and analysis of data on U.S. persons, retaining years' worth of Americans' phone records and even increasing so-called "black bag" secret entry operations.
To handle the increase in so-called human sources, the FBI also plans to overhaul its database system, so it can manage records and verify the accuracy of information from "more than 15,000" informants, according to the document. While many of the recruited informants will apparently be U.S. residents, some informants may be overseas, recruited by FBI agents in foreign offices, the report indicates.
The total cost of the effort tops $22 million, according to the document.
Click Here for Full Blotter Coverage.
The bureau has arranged to use elements of CIA training to teach FBI agents about "Source Targeting and Development," the report states. The courses will train FBI special agents on the "comprehensive tradecraft" needed to identify, recruit and manage these "confidential human sources." According to January testimony by FBI Deputy Director John S. Pistole, the CIA has been working with the bureau on the course.
The bureau apparently mulled whether to adopt entire training courses from the CIA or from the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), which like the CIA recruits spies overseas. But the FBI ultimately determined "the courses offered by those agencies would not meet the needs of the FBI's unique law enforcement." The FBI report said it would also give agents "legal and policy" training, noting that its domestic intelligence efforts are "constitutionally sensitive."
"It's probably a good sign they are not adopting CIA recruitment techniques wholesale," said Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists, an expert on classified programs. U.S. intelligence officers abroad can use bribery, extortion, and other patently illegal acts to corral sources into working for them, Aftergood noted. "You're not supposed to do that in the United States," he said.
--------------------------------------
Well, then. Any network of informants run by the Federal government will need some sort of protection for their snitches, right? Fox News reports the following:
Sept. 11 Security Bill to Include Protections for Citizens Who Report Suspicious Activity
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
WASHINGTON — After nearly a week of intense, behind-the-scenes wrangling, congressional negotiators late Tuesday agreed to include in the pending Sept. 11 security bill sweeping liability protections for citizens who report suspicious activity they fear might be linked to terrorism.
The provision is meant to address the so-called "Flying Imams" case, wherein six Muslim clerics sued passengers aboard a Northwest flight in March who reported them to authorities, leading to their detention. The clerics were cleared but their lawsuit, many lawmakers feared, would discourage future vigilance among the flying public.
The Sept. 11 bill is a top Democratic priority and Republicans fought hard to include the passenger immunity protection, creating common cause with Connecticut Independent Joe Lieberman, chairman of the conference committee knitting together the House and Senate bills designed to implement unfulfilled security recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission.
The bill was expected to swiftly pass the House and Senate and be signed into law by President Bush.
TSA Warns Airport Security About Terror Dry Runs House Democrats, led by Mississippi's Bennie Thompson, sought changes in the immunity language but ultimately were overwhelmed by the Lieberman-GOP coalition on the conference committee.
A joint statement on the inclusion of the John Doe Protections language for terrorism tipsters by House Republican Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, and ranking member of the Committee on Homeland Security Peter King, R-N.Y., follows.
"This is a huge win — a hard-fought victory for House Republicans and, more importantly, for the American people," King said.
"In a post-9/11 reality, vigilance is essential to security. Despite the Democratic opposition to this important homeland security measure, I’m thrilled to announce that common sense has prevailed and heroic Americans who report suspicious activity will be protected from frivolous lawsuits. The American people were heard and our country is safer because of it."
Added Boehner: "I’m pleased that Democratic leaders finally decided to do the right thing and agreed with Republicans that we should be encouraging Americans to report potential terrorist activity to the proper authorities."
"This much-needed measure is critical in the effort to confront the significant threats posed by Al Qaeda and other terrorists and protect the American people. I want to thank Reps. King and [New Mexico Republican Steve] Pearce for their leadership on this issue and their efforts to make America safer."
-------------------------------
Want more? Go to THIS recent ATS thread.
[edit on 25-7-2007 by Justin Oldham]
FBI Proposes Building Network of U.S. Informants
July 25, 2007 1:01 PM
Justin Rood Reports:
The FBI is taking cues from the CIA to recruit thousands of covert informants in the United States as part of a sprawling effort to boost its intelligence capabilities.
According to a recent unclassified report to Congress, the FBI expects its informants to provide secrets about possible terrorists and foreign spies, although some may also be expected to aid with criminal investigations, in the tradition of law enforcement confidential informants. The FBI did not respond to requests for comment on this story.
The FBI said the push was driven by a 2004 directive from President Bush ordering the bureau to improve its counterterrorism efforts by boosting its human intelligence capabilities.
The aggressive push for more secret informants appears to be part of a new effort to grow its intelligence and counterterrorism efforts. Other recent proposals include expanding its collection and analysis of data on U.S. persons, retaining years' worth of Americans' phone records and even increasing so-called "black bag" secret entry operations.
To handle the increase in so-called human sources, the FBI also plans to overhaul its database system, so it can manage records and verify the accuracy of information from "more than 15,000" informants, according to the document. While many of the recruited informants will apparently be U.S. residents, some informants may be overseas, recruited by FBI agents in foreign offices, the report indicates.
The total cost of the effort tops $22 million, according to the document.
Click Here for Full Blotter Coverage.
The bureau has arranged to use elements of CIA training to teach FBI agents about "Source Targeting and Development," the report states. The courses will train FBI special agents on the "comprehensive tradecraft" needed to identify, recruit and manage these "confidential human sources." According to January testimony by FBI Deputy Director John S. Pistole, the CIA has been working with the bureau on the course.
The bureau apparently mulled whether to adopt entire training courses from the CIA or from the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), which like the CIA recruits spies overseas. But the FBI ultimately determined "the courses offered by those agencies would not meet the needs of the FBI's unique law enforcement." The FBI report said it would also give agents "legal and policy" training, noting that its domestic intelligence efforts are "constitutionally sensitive."
"It's probably a good sign they are not adopting CIA recruitment techniques wholesale," said Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists, an expert on classified programs. U.S. intelligence officers abroad can use bribery, extortion, and other patently illegal acts to corral sources into working for them, Aftergood noted. "You're not supposed to do that in the United States," he said.
--------------------------------------
Well, then. Any network of informants run by the Federal government will need some sort of protection for their snitches, right? Fox News reports the following:
Sept. 11 Security Bill to Include Protections for Citizens Who Report Suspicious Activity
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
WASHINGTON — After nearly a week of intense, behind-the-scenes wrangling, congressional negotiators late Tuesday agreed to include in the pending Sept. 11 security bill sweeping liability protections for citizens who report suspicious activity they fear might be linked to terrorism.
The provision is meant to address the so-called "Flying Imams" case, wherein six Muslim clerics sued passengers aboard a Northwest flight in March who reported them to authorities, leading to their detention. The clerics were cleared but their lawsuit, many lawmakers feared, would discourage future vigilance among the flying public.
The Sept. 11 bill is a top Democratic priority and Republicans fought hard to include the passenger immunity protection, creating common cause with Connecticut Independent Joe Lieberman, chairman of the conference committee knitting together the House and Senate bills designed to implement unfulfilled security recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission.
The bill was expected to swiftly pass the House and Senate and be signed into law by President Bush.
TSA Warns Airport Security About Terror Dry Runs House Democrats, led by Mississippi's Bennie Thompson, sought changes in the immunity language but ultimately were overwhelmed by the Lieberman-GOP coalition on the conference committee.
A joint statement on the inclusion of the John Doe Protections language for terrorism tipsters by House Republican Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, and ranking member of the Committee on Homeland Security Peter King, R-N.Y., follows.
"This is a huge win — a hard-fought victory for House Republicans and, more importantly, for the American people," King said.
"In a post-9/11 reality, vigilance is essential to security. Despite the Democratic opposition to this important homeland security measure, I’m thrilled to announce that common sense has prevailed and heroic Americans who report suspicious activity will be protected from frivolous lawsuits. The American people were heard and our country is safer because of it."
Added Boehner: "I’m pleased that Democratic leaders finally decided to do the right thing and agreed with Republicans that we should be encouraging Americans to report potential terrorist activity to the proper authorities."
"This much-needed measure is critical in the effort to confront the significant threats posed by Al Qaeda and other terrorists and protect the American people. I want to thank Reps. King and [New Mexico Republican Steve] Pearce for their leadership on this issue and their efforts to make America safer."
-------------------------------
Want more? Go to THIS recent ATS thread.
[edit on 25-7-2007 by Justin Oldham]
Today is Super Tuesday. We are now starting to see the power shift that will take the Republicans out of power and put the Democrats in to power.
It's worth noting that the trends outlined in this thread are still "on track."
new topics
-
He Had and It Has
Short Stories: 2 hours ago -
Morning’s Reverie
Short Stories: 4 hours ago -
Democrat county officials openly declare intention to commit ballot fraud in PA
2024 Elections: 7 hours ago -
DefCon Teetering on Escalation
World War Three: 10 hours ago
top topics
-
DefCon Teetering on Escalation
World War Three: 10 hours ago, 27 flags -
Incoming TRUMP Admin will Declare a National Emergency to Mass Deport People Here Illegally.
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 15 hours ago, 19 flags -
Whistleblower warns FBI can’t be trusted with background checks for Trump’s nominees
Whistle Blowers and Leaked Documents: 14 hours ago, 16 flags -
Democrat county officials openly declare intention to commit ballot fraud in PA
2024 Elections: 7 hours ago, 12 flags -
What is your most awesome achievement or proudest moment, RE: something you were responsible for?
General Chit Chat: 13 hours ago, 9 flags -
Like a Phoenix from the Ashes Notre-Dame Cathedral re-opens Next Month
Other Current Events: 15 hours ago, 6 flags -
Morning’s Reverie
Short Stories: 4 hours ago, 3 flags -
He Had and It Has
Short Stories: 2 hours ago, 1 flags
active topics
-
The JAN 6th 2021 U.S. Capitol Unrest Charges Against Former President TRUMP Were Dropped Today.
US Political Madness • 14 • : WeMustCare -
Incoming TRUMP Admin will Declare a National Emergency to Mass Deport People Here Illegally.
Social Issues and Civil Unrest • 94 • : AlroyFarms -
Former DOJ charged with defrauding Rep. Matt Gaetz’s family over sex-crimes investigation
Propaganda Mill • 33 • : EyeoftheHurricane -
-@TH3WH17ERABB17- -Q- ---TIME TO SHOW THE WORLD--- -Part- --44--
Dissecting Disinformation • 3302 • : WeMustCare -
He Had and It Has
Short Stories • 1 • : JJproductions -
WATCH LIVE: US Congress hearing on UFOs, unidentified anomalous phenomena
Aliens and UFOs • 130 • : ratcals -
Morning’s Reverie
Short Stories • 1 • : JJproductions -
Democrat county officials openly declare intention to commit ballot fraud in PA
2024 Elections • 8 • : WeMustCare -
60s-70s Psychedelia
Music • 59 • : Hellmutt -
DefCon Teetering on Escalation
World War Three • 22 • : Astrocometus