VP is not a part of the Executive? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

tecoyah · 06-23-2007, 05:05 AM

This is getting rediculous, the lack of accountability being created by the top dogs in this country is becoming disgusting. It is hard to believe we ignore such obvious attacks on our Republic and let it slide. Basically, the administration ownes the DOJ to the extent it has become irrelevant and impotent, which leaves virtually no one to watch the chicken coop. There goes the neighborhood-/

Quote:

"The vice president can't unilaterally decide he is his own branch of government and exempt himself from important, commonsense safeguards for protecting classified information. And he can't insist he has the powers of both the executive and the legislature branches but the responsibilities of neither. Our Constitution doesn't work that way," he said.

http://www.star-telegram.com/464/story/146229.html

ratbastid · 06-23-2007, 05:15 AM

That "god damned piece of paper", the Constitution, is circling the toilet bowl.

host · 06-23-2007, 07:39 AM

Posted my thoughts on this. here:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...5&postcount=34

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

When I read the excuses posted for why it is not advisable...or even a necessity that these two thugs be immediately impeached and tried in the senate for "high crimes against the constitution", framed especially in the context of what is described in this article....a coup by the VP, approved by the de-cider....I have to wonder if these thugs, as well as most of you....have taken leave of your senses.

Have you not lived through the last six years and eight months in this country? They are telling us that they are not accountable, and they have been blatantly acting as if they are not.....and you react with the comments that you've posted? They've tested you....and you confirm their assumptions.....you're giving away....to them....what is not your prerogative to give to them.

You even assume that they'll both give up their offices in early 2009....why?....

Rekna · 06-23-2007, 08:52 AM

I hope that the next president that comes in along with the next congress enact constitutional legislation which clarifies the powers of the branches. In other words, removes signing statements, puts the president back under the eye of the legislative, and returns accountability of both the legislative and executive branch to the people. This is a ridiculous argument used to stall. This needs to be taken to court immediately.

host · 06-23-2007, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

I hope that the next president that comes in along with the next congress enact constitutional legislation which clarifies the powers of the branches. In other words, removes signing statements, puts the president back under the eye of the legislative, and returns accountability of both the legislative and executive branch to the people. This is a ridiculous argument used to stall. This needs to be taken to court immediately.

....or we could strenuously show our support for our elected representatives in congress who are NOW confronting and investigating the illegal activities of our thug president and thug vice-president....for, we must recognize that in response to inquiries from Rep. Henry Waxman's committee, this preposterous assertion of unaccountability from the VP, publicly endorsed now by the president, came into our awareness....

Sty · 06-23-2007, 10:04 AM

I liked this part the best:

Quote:

Originally Posted by http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/22/AR2007062201809.html

Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) said he plans to propose next week, as part of a spending bill for executive operations, a measure to place a hold on funds for Cheney's office and official home until he clarifies to which branch of the government he belongs. Emanuel acknowledged that the proposal is just a stunt, but he said that if Cheney is not part of the executive branch, he should not receive its funds. "As we say in Chicago, follow the money," he said.

roachboy · 06-23-2007, 10:40 AM

ladies and gentlemen, we have lost the vice president's office.
we dont know where it is.
that is why it does not submit to oversight.
we cannot find it, so it cannot recieve requests and directives.
of course it "obeys laws" but no particular laws because it is in no particular place.
besides at this point there is no separate section of law that delimits what the newly-created independent branch of government called the vice president can and cannot do.
so it cannot break any laws because none apply to it: but of course, it observes the relevant laws.
it just turns out that there arent any.
well, maybe a few. we cant tell you what they are of course. but rest assured that once we find the vice president's office, we will make it submit to oversight. you can be sure of that buckaroo. o yes you can.
but we can't find it.
the president's office sez that it is ok that we cannot find the vice-president's office because, well, it just is.
everything is fine.

i feel like we are living in the richard bey show. you remember, the talk show that was the worst of all talk shows, that defied ridicule by ridiculing itself, and so could not be taken as a joke because it presented itself as a joke. and there was something disarming about the richard bey approach.
it seems that the bush administration, and its mutant duplicate in the floating head of dick cheney, have studied richard bey long and learned well from it.

if only this was tv.
if only this was tv.
if only this was tv.

tecoyah · 06-23-2007, 11:56 AM

Looks like there is NO actual executive branch anymore

Quote:

Bush claims oversight exemption too
The White House says the president's own order on classified data does not apply to his office or the vice president's.
By Josh Meyer, Times Staff Writer
June 23, 2007

WASHINGTON — The White House said Friday that, like Vice President Dick Cheney's office, President Bush's office is not allowing an independent federal watchdog to oversee its handling of classified national security information.

An executive order that Bush issued in March 2003 — amending an existing order — requires all government agencies that are part of the executive branch to submit to oversight. Although it doesn't specifically say so, Bush's order was not meant to apply to the vice president's office or the president's office, a White House spokesman said.

I propose a name change...."The Monarchy"

roachboy · 06-23-2007, 12:32 PM

sovereign at the least.
if the person of the president (and vp apparently) is the source of the law, then they cannot be bound by it--they aren't included in the legal system that originates with them. more elements drawn for the legal-theoretical justification for dictatorship outlined by carl schmitt. read political theology sometime and you'll see the logic behind this sort of otherwise bizarre declarations.

monarch is also good: like louis xiv said, "i am the state."

jorgelito · 06-23-2007, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

....or we could strenuously show our support for our elected representatives in congress who are NOW confronting and investigating the illegal activities of our thug president and thug vice-president....for, we must recognize that in response to inquiries from Rep. Henry Waxman's committee, this preposterous assertion of unaccountability from the VP, publicly endorsed now by the president, came into our awareness....

Host what would you suggest we as a voting public do to show our support beyond voting them in already? We, the people have voted the current Congress in. Waxman is/was my representative and I actually visited his office in DC last year. What else can we do besides vote? The only thing I can think of is writing letters, making phone calls and probably more importantly, talk about it on talk radio and in the op-ed pages. It seems to me that our reps pay more attention to the media waves than their actual constituents.

tecoyah · 06-23-2007, 05:34 PM

I will be interested to see how this develops:

Quote:

Washington, D.C. – House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel issued the following statement regarding his amendment to cut funding for the Office of the Vice President from the bill that funds the executive branch. The legislation – the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations bill -- will be considered on the floor of the House of Representatives next week.

"The Vice President has a choice to make. If he believes his legal case, his office has no business being funded as part of the executive branch. However, if he demands executive branch funding he cannot ignore executive branch rules. At the very least, the Vice President should be consistent. This amendment will ensure that the Vice President's funding is consistent with his legal arguments. I have worked closely with my colleagues on this amendment and will continue to pursue this measure in the coming days."

rather petty but....I guess its only fair

ubertuber · 06-23-2007, 07:29 PM

I wish to hell I could remember where, but I read a pretty compelling article saying that Cheney may be correct - that the Constitutional duties laid out for the VP only deal with legislative duties. Obviously that brings up the point that our working understanding of the Veep's office is seriously misaligned with that perspective.

I do think there is an operative distinction that needs to be made here: what you call it is irrelevant in a way, but no office or branch should be making law and enforcing it. That the executive branch gets to make policy that supports and carries out the law seems to be seriously confused with the authority to actually make laws.

host · 06-23-2007, 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jorgelito

Host what would you suggest we as a voting public do to show our support beyond voting them in already? We, the people have voted the current Congress in. Waxman is/was my representative and I actually visited his office in DC last year. What else can we do besides vote? The only thing I can think of is writing letters, making phone calls and probably more importantly, talk about it on talk radio and in the op-ed pages. It seems to me that our reps pay more attention to the media waves than their actual constituents.

Does anyone else get the feeling that, after ordering their lawyers to proceed in an unethical, untruthful, and anti-constitutional SOP for at least the last seven years, Bush, Cheney & Co. will order security personal, and maybe even the military, to pre-empt the more savvy among us, from countering them more aggressively, before we know what hits us? Do they seem, to you, to be well meaning officials who will foster, oversee, and respect the results of unfettered voting, less than 18 months from now...that they will uneventfully transfer power to legitimately elected successors?

The entire Cheney strategy is to avoid all accountability by having lawyers defend Cheney in court with the argument that he is a member of the executive branch and that he has executive immunity. Avoidance of other oversight is attempted by assertion of the contradiction that Cheney occupies a unique office that is a part of the legislative branch, not the executive.

Thug Gonzales has avoided ruling which branch Cheney is in....for the purpose of compliance with national security auditors....for the last six months, as Cheney has held off the audit inspection on the handling of classified info in his office, since 2002 !

Consider all of this, and then tell me that you are confident that NIST decided on it's own, in 2002, not to increase it's staff in order to conduct a timely investigation as to why WTC 7, a 49 story, steel frame structure that was not hit by an airliner on 9/11/2001, collapsed completely into it's own footprint, less than seven hours after the collapse of WTC 1 and 2, and that it is "routine" that the <a href="http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Approach_Summary12Dec06.pdf">NIST report</a> determining how and why WTC 7 collapsed, has still not been finished or released, nearly five years after it collapsed.....

....and then post why you believe that the 2000 presidential vote in Florida was legitimate, and that the 2004 presidential vote legitimately contradicted exit poll results. <b>If you want to pressure the executive branch, and Cheney, too...to comply immediately with subpoenas of investigating house and senate committees, for email record and the testimony of named officials....including what should be the frequent and routine testimony of Secretary of State Rice before oversight committees, which she has so far refused to do.....consider travelling to DC and surrounding executive branch and DOJ and Dept. of State offices, sitting down and chaining yourselves to each other and to nearby fixtures, and refusing to move until the officials in those buildings cooperate with our elected representatives legitimate and overdue, oversight requests!</b>

Quote:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...06/ai_n8970966
Senate barely confirms Olson solicitor general
Human Events, Jun 4, 2001

On May 24, by a 51-to-47 vote, the Senate confirmed the nomination of Ted Olson to be solicitor general of the United States. Olson, who had strong support from conservatives, is most noted for successfully arguing the Republican side in Bush v. Gore before the U.S. Supreme Court last winter. The solicitor general represents the United States is cases before the Supreme Court.....

....Sen. Russ Feingold (D.-Wis.), who had supported other controversial Bush nominees such as John Ashcroft and John Bolton, opposed Olson. <b>Feingold said: "Mr. Olson testified that the solicitor general owes the Supreme Court `absolute candor and fair dealing:</b> I think that nominees owe Senate committees that same duty when they testify at nominations hearings. I do not think that Mr. Olson met that standard."....

<b>Representing Cheney in 2004, Solictor General Theodore Olson apparently lied to the Supreme Court...TWICE declaring to the nine justices that Cheney's 2001 energy committee consisted "only [of] participants were members of the executive branch...:</b>

Quote:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_a...pts/03-475.pdf
Page 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X
RICHARD B. CHENEY, VICE
:
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
:
STATES, ET AL.,
:
<h2>Petitioners</h2>
:
v.
: No. 03-475
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
:
COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
:
COLUMBIA, ET AL.,
:
Respondents.
:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X
Washington, D.C.
Tuesday, April 27, 2004
The above-entitled matter came on for oral
argument before the Supreme Court of the United
States at 10:01 a.m.
APPEARANCES:
THEODORE B. OLSON, ESQ., Solicitor General,
Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; <h2>on
behalf of the Petitioner. </h2>

<b>From page 10:</b>

QUESTION: General Olson, would you
9 clarify why we are dealing with the merits. I
10 thought, and correct me if I misunderstand this, that
11 the merits will have to be resolved in the first
12 instance by the court below. If we find that there
13 is jurisdiction, if we agree with you, for example,
14 that this discovery should not have been allowed,
15 then why should we take the first view of the merits
16 of this case?
17
GENERAL OLSON: It seems to me in the
18 context of this case, Justice Ginsburg, that once
19 jurisdiction is acknowledged, the context of the
20 case, the administrative record, which specifically
21 contains within it the Presidential directive which
22 created the advisory committee only to include
23 members of the executive branch. <b>The report of the
24 committee, which specifically identifies as members
25 only members of the executive branch</b>, and the
1 affidavit or declaration that's on file from the
2 deputy director, <h3>which said that the only
3 participants were members of the executive branch,
4 and the presumption of reliability, of regularity
5 that the Court consistently, U.S. vs. Armstrong is
6 one case, the Court consistently, absent clear
7 evidence to the contrary, accords executive branch
8 action -omg</h3>
9.....

I submit that this executive branch has forfeited it's <b>"presumption of reliability, of regularity that the Court consistently, U.S. vs. Armstrong is one case, the Court consistently, absent clear evidence to the contrary, accords executive branch action "</b>..

Quote:

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/ar..._cid=rss:site1

Cheney Tangles With Agency on Secrecy
By Chitra Ragavan
Posted 2/8/07

An important legal ruling is pending over Vice President Cheney's refusal to disclose statistics on document classification and declassification activity. The Information Security Oversight Office, which is responsible for the policy and oversight of the government's security classification system, has asked Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to direct Cheney's office to disclose these statistics.

Cheney's office provided the information until 2002 but then stopped doing so, J. William Leonard, the director of ISOO, told U.S. News. At issue is whether the office of the vice president is an executive branch entity when it comes to supporting the activities of the president and the vice president. The reporting requirements for disclosing classification and declassification activity fall under a presidential executive order.

"Basically the definition says that any entity of the executive branch that comes into possession of classified information is covered by the reporting requirements," says Leonard. "I have my understanding of what the executive order requires, and I'm going to the attorney general to ascertain if my reading of the executive order is correct."

However, Megan McGinn, Cheney's deputy press secretary, says the vice president's office is exempt.

"This matter has been thoroughly reviewed," McGinn told U.S. News, "and it has been determined that reporting requirements do not apply to the office of the vice president, which has both legislative and executive functions." Under the Constitution, the vice president serves as president of the Senate.

But advocates for release say the vice president is shirking accountability......

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/22/wa...erland&emc=rss
June 22, 2007
Agency Is Target in Cheney Fight on Secrecy Data
By SCOTT SHANE

For four years, Vice President Dick Cheney has resisted routine oversight of his office’s handling of classified information, and when the National Archives unit that monitors classification in the executive branch objected, the vice president’s office suggested abolishing the oversight unit, according to documents released yesterday by a Democratic congressman.

The Information Security Oversight Office, a unit of the National Archives, appealed the issue to the Justice Department, which has not yet ruled on the matter.

Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California and chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, disclosed Mr. Cheney’s effort to shut down the oversight office. Mr. Waxman, who has had a leading role in the stepped-up efforts by Democrats to investigate the Bush administration, outlined the matter in an eight-page letter sent Thursday to the vice president and posted, along with other documentation, on the committee’s Web site.

Officials at the National Archives and the Justice Department confirmed the basic chronology of events cited in Mr. Waxman’s letter.

The letter said that after repeatedly refusing to comply with a routine annual request from the archives for data on his staff’s classification of internal documents, the vice president’s office in 2004 blocked an on-site inspection of records that other agencies of the executive branch regularly go through.

But the National Archives is an executive branch department headed by a presidential appointee, and it is assigned to collect the data on classified documents under a presidential executive order. Its Information Security Oversight Office is the archives division that oversees classification and declassification.

“I know the vice president wants to operate with unprecedented secrecy,” Mr. Waxman said in an interview. “But this is absurd. This order is designed to keep classified information safe. His argument is really that he’s not part of the executive branch, so he doesn’t have to comply.”

A spokeswoman for Mr. Cheney, Megan McGinn, said, “We’re confident that we’re conducting the office properly under the law.” She declined to elaborate.

Other officials familiar with Mr. Cheney’s view said that he and his legal adviser, David S. Addington, did not believe that the executive order applied to the vice president’s office because it had a legislative as well as an executive status in the Constitution. Other White House offices, including the National Security Council, routinely comply with the oversight requirements, according to Mr. Waxman’s office and outside experts.

Tony Fratto, a White House spokesman, said last night, “The White House complies with the executive order, including the National Security Council.”

The dispute is far from the first to pit Mr. Cheney and Mr. Addington against outsiders seeking information, usually members of Congress or advocacy groups. Their position is generally based on strong assertions of presidential power and the importance of confidentiality, which Mr. Cheney has often argued was eroded by post-Watergate laws and the prying press.

<b>Mr. Waxman asserted in his letter and the interview that Mr. Cheney’s office should take the efforts of the National Archives especially seriously because it has had problems protecting secrets.

He noted that I. Lewis Libby Jr., the vice president’s former chief of staff, was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice for lying to a grand jury and the F.B.I. during an investigation of the leak of classified information — the secret status of Valerie Wilson, the wife of a Bush administration critic, as a Central Intelligence Agency officer.

Mr. Waxman added that in May 2006, a former aide in Mr. Cheney’s office, Leandro Aragoncillo, pleaded guilty to passing classified information to plotters trying to overthrow the president of the Philippines.

“Your office may have the worst record in the executive branch for safeguarding classified information,” Mr. Waxman wrote to Mr. Cheney.</b>

In the tradition of Washington’s semantic dust-ups, this one might be described as a fight over what an “entity” is. The executive order, last updated in 2003 and currently under revision, states that it applies to any “entity within the executive branch that comes into the possession of classified information.”

J. William Leonard, director of the oversight office, has argued in a series of letters to Mr. Addington that the vice president’s office is indeed such an entity. <b>He noted that previous vice presidents had complied with the request for data on documents classified and declassified, and that Mr. Cheney did so in 2001 and 2002.

But starting in 2003, the vice president’s office began refusing to supply the information. In 2004, it blocked an on-site inspection</b> by Mr. Leonard’s office that was routinely carried out across the government to check whether documents were being properly labeled and safely stored.

Mr. Addington did not reply in writing to Mr. Leonard’s letters, according to officials familiar with their exchanges. But Mr. Addington stated in conversations that <b>the vice president’s office was not an “entity within the executive branch”</b> because, under the Constitution, the vice president also plays a role in the legislative branch, as president of the Senate, able to cast a vote in the event of a tie.

Mr. Waxman rejected that argument. <b>“He doesn’t have classified information because of his legislative function,” Mr. Waxman said of Mr. Cheney. “It’s because of his executive function.”</b>

Mr. Cheney’s general resistance to complying with the oversight request was first reported last year by The Chicago Tribune.

<b>In January, Mr. Leonard wrote to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales asking that he resolve the question. Erik Ablin, a Justice Department spokesman, said last night, “This matter is currently under review in the department.”

Whatever the ultimate ruling, according to Mr. Waxman’s letter, the vice president’s office has already carried out “possible retaliation” against the oversight office.</b>

As part of an interagency review of Executive Order 12958, <b>Mr. Cheney’s office proposed eliminating appeals to the attorney general — precisely the avenue Mr. Leonard was taking. According to Mr. Waxman’s investigation, the vice president’s staff also proposed abolishing the Information Security Oversight Office.</b>

The interagency group revising the executive order has rejected those proposals, according to Mr. Waxman. Ms. McGinn, Mr. Cheney’s spokeswoman, declined to comment.

Mr. Cheney’s penchant for secrecy has long been a striking feature of the Bush administration, beginning with his fight to keep confidential the identities of the energy industry officials who advised his task force on national energy policy in 2001. Mr. Cheney took that dispute to the Supreme Court and won.

Steven Aftergood, who tracks government secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists and last year filed a complaint with the oversight office about Mr. Cheney’s noncompliance, said, “This illustrates just how far the vice president will go to evade external oversight.”

But David B. Rivkin, a Washington lawyer who served in Justice Department and White House posts in earlier Republican administrations, said Mr. Cheney had a valid point about the unusual status of the office he holds.

“The office of the vice president really is unique,” Mr. Rivkin said. “It’s not an agency. It’s an extension of the vice president himself.”

....and again...just a month ago....lawyers defending Cheney against Valerie Plame's civil suit against him, argue that he has immunity....absolute, executive immunity:

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...v=rss_politics
Judge Told Leak Was Part of 'Policy Dispute'

By Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 18, 2007; A03

Attorneys for Vice President Cheney and top White House officials told a federal judge yesterday that they cannot be held liable for anything they disclosed to reporters about covert CIA officer Valerie Plame or her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV....

......The lawyers said any conversations Cheney and the officials had about Plame with one another or with reporters were part of their normal duties because they were discussing foreign policy and engaging in an appropriate "policy dispute." <h3>Cheney's attorney went further, arguing that Cheney is legally akin to the president because of his unique government role and has absolute immunity from any lawsuit.</h3>

U.S. District Judge John D. Bates asked: "So you're arguing there is nothing -- absolutely nothing -- these officials could have said to reporters that would have been beyond the scope of their employment," whether the statements were true or false?

"That's true, Your Honor. Mr. Wilson was criticizing government policy," said Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, deputy assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's civil division. "These officials were responding to that criticism.".....

....and if Cheney has opted out of the executive branch....has his office moved to an undisclosed, "fourth branch" status, or is it instead, under the auspices of the US Senate, or is it....and he....simply unaccountable to any oversight?

Quote:

http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29166
CREW ASKS “IS THE VICE PRESIDENT CREATING A FOURTH BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT?”
22 Jun 2007

Washington, DC – In light of new revelations that Vice President Cheney is claiming that his office is not subject to an executive order governing the handling of classified information because as president of the Senate he has both legislative and executive duties, CREW asks if Vice President Cheney is attempting to create a fourth branch of the government?

Under his argument, if Mr. Cheney is not subject to executive branch security requirements, surely he must be subject to Senate rules.

To safeguard sensitive information, in 1987 the Senate created the Office of Senate Security, which is part of the Secretary of the Senate. The Security Office’s standards, procedures and requirements are set out in the Senate Security Manual, which is binding on all employees of the Senate.

So, if Mr. Cheney is a member of the Senate, he must adhere to the following:

•a requirement that any of his staff needing access to classified information undergo a security clearance and complete written non-disclosure agreements;

•physical security requirements, that the Security Office is empowered to implement, including any necessary inspections;

•investigations of suspected security violations by employees, such as the security violation committed by Scooter Libby when he unlawfully disclosed the identity of Valerie Plame Wilson, then a covert CIA operative.

In addition, Mr. Cheney and his staff would be subject to investigation by the Senate Ethics Committee, which has the responsibility to investigate allegations of improper conduct which may reflect upon the Senate, including violations of law and the rules and regulations of the Senate.

Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington said Mr. Cheney’s arguments raise new questions:

“Since there is no fourth branch of government to which Mr. Cheney could belong, by claiming the Office of the Vice President is within the legislative branch does Mr. Cheney agree that he is subject to Senate security procedures?”

“Mr. Cheney’s office refused to describe its 2003 classification activities to the National Archives and Record Administration (NARA), but is he now willing to describe them to the Senate Security Office?”

“If Mr. Cheney does not believe that NARA’s Information Security Oversight Office can conduct on-sight inspection of Mr. Cheney’s office to see how sensitive material is handled, does he agree that the Senate Security Office can conduct such an inspection?”

***

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) is a non-profit legal watchdog group dedicated to holding public officials accountable for their actions......

Willravel · 06-24-2007, 12:53 AM

This is a result of having the stupidest people in the world in jobs that require the smartest people in the world. Of course the President and VP are in the executive. To say otherwise is to brand yourself more ignorant than an elementary school child. This stuff is all covered in basic government.

It's impeachment time, people. It has been for a while.

tecoyah · 06-24-2007, 04:44 AM

I am beginning to agree that impeachment hearings are inevitable. It almost seems as if the Administration is testing the capabilities of the Government to self regulate. Unfortunately, it also seems this government is incapable of doing so at this point.

In a nutshell:

The Executive Branch has now claimed immunity from oversight.
The Judiciary is unwilling, or incapable of challenging this assertion.
The Legislature cannot challenge without the backing of the judiciary short of Impeachment.
The population cannot correct the trend without serious revolt.

Impeachment seems a viable course of action.

Rekna · 06-24-2007, 06:37 AM

If he is not part of the executive branch then why does he keep claiming executive privilege when being asked to testify? Wouldn't his assertion that he is not part of the executive branch also mean he looses any and all claims to executive privilege?

dc_dux · 06-24-2007, 07:06 AM

As I understand it, the person to determine how the VP is covered under the Executive Order is....surprise, the AG, Alberto Gonzales.

....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.

http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?p=507

Six months later, the AG has still not responded to the letter from the National Archives....I guess he's been kinda busy...or he forgot (oh that faulty memory).

This does have the making of a serious constitutional confrontation.

roachboy · 06-24-2007, 07:14 AM

the washington post began a series on cheney this morning.
it is interesting, if late in the game.
and long, so here's a link to chapter 1:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/chene...ers/chapter_1/

host · 06-24-2007, 08:37 AM

DOJ misled, stonewalled, and hasnow admitted that it is not investigating and will not rule
on the January complaint of the chief of the Archives' Information Security Oversight Office. We're on our own, now folks....Waxman is our only hope....as most of us are "busy" with NASCAR, Baseball, Budweiser, and making sure that we install that <a href="http://www.acehardware.com/product/index.jsp?productId=1787731">MR. Clean Autodry filter </a>on our garden hoses that eliminates water spots when we "towel down" the hood of our "ride"..... DOJ and the AG are totally compromised. Do you think that today, transfer of an investigation, due to an internal judgment of a conflict of interest, like the one transferred to Patrick Fitzgerald by Asst. AG James Comey, would even be considered by this corrupt DOJ management?

Quote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19391241/site/newsweek/
A New Cheney-Gonzales Mystery
Newsweek

July 2-9, 2007 issue

.....Cheney's position so frustrated J. William Leonard, the chief of the Archives' Information Security Oversight Office, which enforces the order, that he complained in January to Gonzales. <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19390442/site/newsweek/">In a letter</a>, Leonard wrote that Cheney's position was inconsistent with the "plain text reading" of the executive order and asked the attorney general for an official ruling. But Gonzales never responded, thereby permitting Cheney to continue blocking Leonard from conducting even a routine inspection of how the veep's office was handling classified documents, according to correspondence released by House Government Reform Committee chair Rep. Henry Waxman.

Why didn't Gonzales act on Leonard's request? <b>His aides assured reporters that Leonard's letter has been "under review" for the past five months—by Justice's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC)</b>. But on June 4, an OLC lawyer denied a Freedom of Information Act request about the dispute asserting that OLC had "no documents" on the matter, according to <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19390650/site/newsweek/Cheney">a copy of the letter obtained by NEWSWEEK</a>. Steve Aftergood, the Federation of American Scientists researcher who filed the request, said he found the denial letter "puzzling and inexplicable"—especially since Leonard had copied OLC chief Steve Bradbury on his original letter to Gonzales. The FOIA response has piqued the interest of congressional investigators, who note Bradbury is the same official in charge of vetting all document requests from Congress about the U.S. attorneys flap. Asked about the apparent discrepancy, <b>Justice spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said the <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19390652/site/newsweek/">OLC response</a> "was and remains accurate" because Leonard's letter had generated no "substantive work product."</b>

Waxman told NEWSWEEK he now plans to investigate the handling of the issue by Justice as well as Cheney's refusal to comply with the executive order, which he called part of a "pattern" of stonewalling by the veep. Cheney spokeswoman Lea Anne McBride said, "We're confident we are conducting the office properly under the law." She also pointed to comments by White House Deputy Press Secretary Dana Perino, who said that Bush, not the National Archives, was the "sole enforcer" of the executive order relating to classified information.

—Michael Isikoff

jorgelito · 06-24-2007, 06:53 PM

This sounds like failed government. Where is the oversight?

pan6467 · 06-24-2007, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jorgelito

This sounds like failed government. Where is the oversight?

When all 3 branches are of the same party, there is no oversight because those people in power can afford to look away, not enough people care to do anything.

When the president chooses NOT to listen to the other 2 branches and noone does anything but bitch, moan and complain or are afraid to, he can do anything he wants.

When apathy and nonchalance run rampant and people are more worried about just making enough to pay bills and the educational system is broken so kids aren't truly taught their rights and that they have voices, no one will stand up.

When noone tries to fix it or everyone expects someone else to fix it...... nothing will ever happen.

When the press feeds the people Paris, Lindsay, missing rich white women, American Idol, etc. and skims what truly needs attention, no one really can see what needs done.

When talking heads bully, pound chests, talk about how people who disagree are idiotic and throw negativity out in a way that makes them look like they know more and are "the voices of reason" and they have nothing but callers on that agree (those that disagree get silenced and ridiculed and taken off fast)..... people tend to believe that person must know something and is more intelligent on the subject than they so they will only do what that talking head tells them to, will only believe what that talking head tells them to believe and will tune out what they don't want to see.

There's plenty more excuses..... pick yours.

fastom · 06-25-2007, 11:50 PM

The whole works of them needs to be run out of office and then charged, tried and executed for their roles in 9/11 and the wars.

Aren't there enough brave politicians willing to get the impeachment rolling? Another year and a half and there won't me much of a country left to save.

host · 06-26-2007, 02:48 PM

Rep. Waxman's letter today to white house counsel:

Quote:

http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?p=517
June 26th, 2007 by Jesse Lee

Chairman Henry Waxman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, who produced the initial report on Vice President Cheney’s disregard for rules governing the handling of classified information, has written has a letter to White House Counsel Fred Fielding indicating that contrary to the recent claims of White House spokesperson Dana Perino, there is evidence that the White House has repeatedly failed to investigate security violations, take corrective action following breaches, and appropriately protect classified information.

The full letter (pdf):

June 26, 2007

The Honorable Fred Fielding
Counsel to the President
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. Fielding:

Last week, I wrote the Vice President about evidence that he violated Executive Order 12958 by blocking the National Archives from conducting security inspections in his office. In response, White House spokesperson Dana Perino said: “The president and the vice president are complying with all the rules and regulations regarding the handling of classified material and making sure that it is safeguarded and protected.” She asserted that the only part of Executive Order 12958 that was not being followed by the White House and the Vice President’s office was the “small portion” giving oversight responsibilities to the Information Security Oversight Office of the National Archives.

I have received information that casts doubt on these assertions. There is evidence that both the White House and the Office of the Vice President have flaunted multiple requirements for protecting classified information, not just the section related to the responsibilities of the Information Security Oversight Office. According to current and former White House security personnel who have contacted my staff, White House practices have been dangerously inadequate with respect to investigating security violations, taking corrective action following breaches, and physically securing classified information.

I have received information that:

• White House security officials have been blocked from inspecting West Wing offices for compliance with procedures for handling classified information. The White House has its own security office that functions independently of the Information Security Oversight Office in the National Archives. According to several security officials who have worked in this White House office, the Bush White House blocked the White House security officers from conducting unannounced inspections of the West Wing. This is a departure from the practices of the prior administration, which allowed these inspections.

• The White House regularly ignored security breaches. The security officers described repeated instances in which security breaches were reported to the White House Security Office by Secret Service or CIA agents, but were never investigated. In one case, the White House Security Office took no action after receiving a report that a White House official left classified materials unattended in a hotel room. In numerous instances, reports that White House officials left classified information on their desks went uninvestigated.

• The President’s top political advisor received a renewal of his security clearance despite presidential directives calling for the denial of security clearances for officials who misrepresent their involvement in security leaks. Under guidelines issued by President Bush, security clearances should not be renewed for individuals who deny their role in the release of classified information, regardless of whether the disclosure was intentional or negligent. Contrary to this guidance, the White House Security Office renewed the security clearance for Karl Rove in late 2006.

• The White House has condoned widespread mismanagement at the White House Security Office. According to the White House security officers, the White House allowed the White House Security Office to be run by managers who ignored basic security procedures and allowed other White House officials to do so also.

The Oversight Committee has been seeking to interview or take the deposition of White House officials with knowledge of these security matters since I wrote to former White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card about them in April. While I do not question your good faith in seeking to negotiate the terms of these interviews, further delay would not be in the interests of the nation. I am therefore writing to advise you that unless we are able to schedule these interviews promptly, I will bring before the Committee on Thursday, June 28, a motion to subpoena the relevant officials for depositions.

Background

I wrote to Vice President Cheney last week regarding his decision to exempt himself from the President’s executive order that establishes a uniform, government-wide system for safeguarding classified information. In response to my letter, White House spokesperson Dana Perino explained that the Vice President is complying with most sections of the executive order, stating: “There’s no question that he is in compliance, in terms of the meat of the issue, which is … the handling of classified documents. It’s just simply a matter of a small portion of an executive order regarding reporting requirements, of which he is not subject to, and the interpretation of the EO.”

Ms. Perino repeatedly reiterated this point, stating: “The President and the Vice President are complying with all the rules and regulations regarding the handling of classified material and are making sure that it is safeguarded and protected,” “the Vice President’s Office says that they are in compliance, and I can tell you on behalf of the President that we are in compliance, with all matters regarding classified information,” and “I don’t think there’s a question of the handling of the documents. There’s a question of the reporting. In the handling of the documents, we are confident that we are in full compliance.”

These statements do not appear to be accurate. After the Committee’s hearing in March into the disclosure of the identity of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson, several former and current employees of the White House Security Office informed my staff of multiple White House violations of the rules for safeguarding classified information. If their statements are true, the White House has repeatedly disregarded basic requirements for protecting our national security secrets.

Blocking Inspections by White House Security Officials

Last week, White House spokesperson Dana Perino asserted that the Information Security Oversight Office in the National Archives “is not the only agency that can check” whether White House offices are in compliance with the security procedures established by the President’s executive order. On this issue, Ms. Perino is right. Within the Executive Office of the President, there is a White House Security Office that is supposed to ensure that all White House officials comply with the requirements for protecting classified information.

What Ms. Perino did not mention is that former and current employees of the White House Security Office have informed my staff that they have been blocked from conducting inspections in the West Wing of the White House, where most of the President’s most senior advisors work.

Under Executive Order 12958, every entity in the executive branch that handles classified information is supposed to have a security office that administers the classified information program. The White House Security Office fills this role in the White House, overseeing White House compliance with the order. Its responsibilities under the executive order and implementing regulations and guidance include issuing security clearances, conducting security education and training programs, and maintaining an ongoing self-inspection program.

During the previous administration, security specialists working for the White House Security Office were given access to all White House offices, including those in the West Wing. According to the security officers, this access was revoked by the Bush Administration. As a result, only the senior management of the White House Security Office (such as the Director and Deputy Director) retained the authority to enter the West Wing without advance notice to and assistance from West Wing personnel. The security officers objected to the loss of access, but Security Office management denied their requests to restore access to the West Wing.

The denial of access to the West Wing has serious adverse effects, according to the security officers. The officers report that they and other security officers working in the White House Security Office do not have the ability to perform basic security functions, such as conducting unannounced inspections of West Wing offices. The result is that security violations are disclosed only when the incidents are self-reported by the violators or happen to be noticed and reported by Secret Service or other officials with access to the West Wing.

Ignoring Security Violations

The security officers also described a systemic breakdown in procedures for responding to reports of security violations in the West Wing. The officers identified multiple instances of security breaches that were reported to the White House Security Office by concerned officials, such as Secret Service agents, but ignored by the White House Security Office. According to the security officers, the practice within the White House Security Office was not to document or investigate violations occurring in the West Wing or to take corrective action.

This failure to respond to reports of security breaches would appear to be a direct violation of Executive Order 12958. Under the executive order, one of the fundamental responsibilities of security offices is to investigate reported security breaches and “take appropriate and prompt corrective action.”
The security officers provided several examples of White House security breaches that were never investigated by the White House Security Office. One high-profile example cited by the officials was the failure of the White House to initiate its own investigation into the disclosure of Valerie Plame Wilson’s covert identity. It took months before a criminal investigation into this breach was initiated by the Justice Department. Yet according to the security officers, no White House investigation into the breach was initiated during this critical period.

In another example described to my staff, a junior White House aide reported that a senior assistant to the President improperly disclosed “Sensitive Compartmented Information” to the junior aide, even though the aide had no security clearance. Although SCI is the highest level of security classification, the White House Security Office took no steps to investigate or take corrective action.

In a third example, a security officer reported that a White House official left classified material behind in a hotel room during a foreign trip with the President. Although the CIA recovered the material and reported the incident, the White House Security Office did not investigate, seek remedial action, or discipline the responsible official.

The security officers also described numerous examples of White House officials failing to physically secure classified information within the White House in accordance with applicable security requirements. The officers related that they had received numerous reports of White House officials leaving classified information out on their desks, rather than in secure locations. Yet according to the officers, the White House Security Office made no effort to investigate these violations or implement any remedial actions.

Renewal of Karl Rove’s Security Clearance

On March 16, 2007, I wrote to White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten to ask about the renewal of Karl Rove’s security clearance. You wrote back on April 16, 2007, to say that Mr. Rove did undergo a review for the renewal of his security clearance last year. According to your letter:

My office has confirmed that these processes and security clearance renewals continued uninterrupted for all White House officials, including for Karl Rove. Although Mr. Knodell testified he had no “first-hand knowledge” of whether a reinvestigation of Mr. Rove’s security clearance was initiated, my office has confirmed that it was initiated. Upon conclusion of the reinvestigation process in late 2006, Mr. Rove’s security clearance was continued by the Office of Security and not altered in any respect.

This renewal of Mr. Rove’s security clearance would appear to be another example of a questionable White House security practice. Under guidelines approved by President Bush in 2005, the “deliberate or negligent disclosure” of classified information can be a “disqualifying” condition. Moreover, these guidelines provide that an individual’s response to a potential security breach may be just as important as the breach itself. Under the guidelines, a lack of candor, even about unintentional breaches, can be grounds for terminating access to classified information.

Under these standards, it is hard to see how Mr. Rove would qualify for a renewal of his security clearance. At a minimum, his disclosure of Ms. Wilson’s status as a CIA officer would appear to be a disqualifying “negligent” disclosure under the executive order. In addition, he told White House spokesman Scott McClellan in September 2003 that there was “no truth” to the allegations that he was involved in the disclosure of Ms. Plame’s identity. This misrepresentation would appear to be an independent ground under the President’s guidelines for denying his clearance renewal.

Mismanagement of the White House Security Office

Another area of concern involves the management of the White House Security Office itself. The current and former security officials reported that James Knodell, who until recently was the Director of the White House Security Office, and Ken Greeson, the Deputy Director, routinely violated basic security guidelines. They also said that these officials were poor managers who were loath to assert authority over White House security practices or to take actions that could embarrass White House officials.

One example cited by the officials involved security procedures in the White House sensitive compartmented information facility (SCIF). The security officers said that Mr. Knodell and Mr. Greeson habitually brought their Blackberry devices and cell phones into the SCIF in the White House Security Office in violation of the rules. The officials said that Mr. Knodell and Mr. Greeson also allowed others, such as visiting White House personnel, to bring their Blackberries and cell phones into the SCIF. According to the officials, these improper practices were allowed to continue even after security officers repeatedly informed Mr. Knodell and Mr. Greeson that the practices violated security rules and set a poor example.

<b>According to the security officers, the poor management and bad examples set by Mr. Knodell and Mr. Greeson caused extreme frustration and plummeting morale among White House security officers, resulting in the departure of more than half of the White House security officers within the last year.

Request for Interviews

I wrote to former White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card about many of these issues on April 23, 2007, when I urged Mr. Card to appear voluntarily before the Committee to address inadequate White House security procedures. In your letter to me on April 24, 2007, and in subsequent meetings, you proposed that the Committee first interview lower-ranking White House officials. You expressed the hope that these interviews could “obviate the need to further consider your request for Mr. Card’s appearance.”

I do not doubt your good faith in proposing that the Committee consider interviews with other White House officials before seeking testimony from Mr. Card. But it has now been over two months and the Committee still has not been able to arrange an interview with Alan Swendiman, the Director of the Office of Administration; Mark Frownfelter, a former White House security officer; and Jeff Thompson, the former Director of the White House Security Office. This continued delay is impeding the Committee’s inquiry and is not in the nation’s interest.</b>

I respectfully request that the interviews that the Committee has been seeking be scheduled without further delay. If this cannot be accomplished, I will recommend to the Committee the issuance of subpoenas at our next business meeting, which is currently scheduled for June 28.

If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me or ask your staff to contact Michael Gordon or David Rapallo of the Committee staff at (202) XXX-XXXX.

Sincerely,

Henry A. Waxman
Chairman

cc: Tom Davis
Ranking Minority Member

We can't determine how the following "investigation" turned out.....but Chalabi himself was never interviewed by the FBI, and only a small number of people in the executive branch could be suspected of leaking the code breaking information to Chalabi:

Quote:

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:...lnk&cd=3&gl=us
Chalabi reportedly told Iran that U.S. broke its secret code

By James Risen and David Johnston
NEW YORK TIMES NEWS SERVICE

June 2, 2004

.........U.S. officials said that about six weeks ago, Chalabi told the Baghdad station chief of Iran's Ministry of Intelligence and Security that the United States was reading the communications traffic of the Iranian spy service, one of the most sophisticated in the Middle East.

According to U.S. officials, the Iranian official in Baghdad, possibly not believing Chalabi's account, sent a cable to Tehran detailing his conversation with Chalabi, using the broken code.

That encrypted cable, intercepted and read by the United States, tipped off U.S. officials to the fact that Chalabi had betrayed the code-breaking operation, the U.S. officials said.

The U.S. sources said that, in the cable to Tehran, the Iranian official recounted how Chalabi had said that one of "them" – a reference to an American – had revealed the code-breaking operation, the officials said. The Iranian reported that Chalabi said the American had been drunk.

The Iranians sent what U.S. intelligence regarded as a test message, which mentioned a cache of weapons inside Iraq, believing that if the code had been broken, U.S. military forces would be quickly dispatched to the specified site. But there was no such action.

The account of Chalabi's actions has been confirmed by several senior U.S. officials, who said the leak contributed to the White House decision to break with him.

The FBI has opened an espionage investigation seeking to determine exactly what information Chalabi turned over to the Iranians as well as who told Chalabi that the Iranian code had been broken, government officials said.

The inquiry, still in an early phase, is focused on a very small number of people who were close to Chalabi and also had access to the highly restricted information about the Iran code.

In a television interview May 23, Chalabi – a member of the Iraq Governing Council – attacked the CIA and the director of central intelligence, George J. Tenet, saying the agency was behind what Chalabi asserted was an effort to smear him.

One of those who has defended Chalabi is Richard N. Perle, the former chairman of the Defense Policy Board.

"The CIA has disliked him passionately for a long time, and has mounted a campaign against him, with some considerable success," Perle said yesterday. "I've seen no evidence of improper behavior on his part. No evidence whatsoever."

....<b>and, 17 months after the preceding article, there was the following reporting....and nothing, since....</b>

Quote:

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache...lnk&cd=3&gl=us
Top Secret: Status Of Chalabi Inquiry

November 7, 2005 By SCOT J. PALTROW, Wall Street Journal

As Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Chalabi arrives this week in Washington for talks, there is little sign of progress in a federal investigation of allegations that he once leaked U.S. intelligence secrets to Iran.

More than 17 months after then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice publicly promised a full criminal inquiry, the Federal Bureau of Investigation hasn't interviewed Mr. Chalabi himself or many current and former U.S. government officials thought likely to have information related to the matter, according to lawyers for several of these individuals and others close to the case.

The investigation of Mr. Chalabi, who had been a confidant of senior Defense Department officials before the war in Iraq, remains in the hands of the FBI, with little active interest from local federal prosecutors or the Justice Department, these people said. There also has been no grand-jury involvement in the case.

The investigation centers on allegations that one or more U.S. officials in early 2004 leaked intelligence to Mr. Chalabi, including the fact that the U.S. had broken a crucial Iranian code, and that Mr. Chalabi in turn had passed the information to the Baghdad station chief of Iran's Ministry of Intelligence and Security. The assertions about Mr. Chalabi's involvement came after U.S. intelligence agencies intercepted a cable from the station chief back home to Iran, detailing what the chief claimed was a conversation with Mr. Chalabi about the broken code.

Former intelligence officials said such a leak could have caused serious damage to U.S. national security. The broken code had enabled U.S. intelligence agencies to monitor covert cable traffic among Iranian operatives around the world. The encrypted cable traffic was a main source of information on Iranian operations inside Iraq. The leak also threatened U.S. efforts to monitor any Iranian steps to develop nuclear weapons. And there was concern that the disclosure could prompt other countries to upgrade their encryption, making it more difficult for the U.S. to spy on them.

Mr. Chalabi has strongly denied the allegations. He once was a close Bush administration ally and a key proponent of the Iraqi invasion, though he has more recently appeared to fall from American favor. Before the war, during his long period as a prominent Iraqi exile, he also cultivated close ties to the government in Iran, which was his ally in opposing former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. Just this weekend, Mr. Chalabi made a trip to Tehran to visit Iranian government leaders.

The handling of the Chalabi investigation so far stands in contrast to the aggressive inquiry conducted by special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald into the leaking of intelligence agent Valerie Plame's name, which led to the indictment of I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff.

Questions about the progress of the Chalabi investigation also follow the FBI's disclosure last week that it had closed an investigation into forged documents purporting to show Iraq had sought uranium ore from Niger. The Niger claim set off an intense intelligence debate, which was at the center of the leaking of the intelligence agent's identity.

Whitley Bruner, a former longtime undercover Central Intelligence Agency official in the Middle East who has followed Mr. Chalabi's career closely since 1991, said that, in contrast to Mr. Fitzgerald's investigation, the zChalabi leak inquiry "just sort of disappeared."

FBI spokesman John Miller strongly denied that the Chalabi investigation has languished. "This is currently an open investigation and an active investigation," he said, adding that "numerous current and former government employees have been interviewed."

Mr. Miller said that, because the investigation is an active one, he couldn't discuss specific individuals nor comment on how the inquiry is being conducted. A Justice Deptartment spokesman declined to comment.

Mr. Chalabi's lawyer, Boston attorney John J.E. Markham II, said neither the FBI nor Justice Department ever responded to an offer to have Mr. Chalabi come to Washington to answer law-enforcement questions and aid in the investigation. Mr. Markham made available a copy of a letter he said he had sent on June 2, 2004, to then-Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller. It categorically denied that Mr. Chalabi had leaked any U.S. intelligence. And it stated "Dr. Chalabi is willing and ready to come to Washington, D.C. to be interviewed fully by law-enforcement agents on this subject and to answer all questions on this subject fully and without reservation."

Mr. Markham, a former federal prosecutor, said that, ordinarily in a leak investigation, "the first thing you would do would be to get the tippee," the person to whom the information was leaked, "in there and say 'Who talked to you?' " But, he said, "That never happened."

The FBI's Mr. Miller said he wouldn't comment on Mr. Chalabi but said the FBI , in general, interviews witnesses when an investigation indicates it is best to do so, not necessarily at the beginning of an inquiry. He added, "The fact that this person or that person has or hasn't been interviewed yet is just not material to whether there's an active investigation."

One likely focus of FBI inquiries would be a small group of people in the Pentagon and White House who had frequent contact with Mr. Chalabi and also probably knew the closely guarded secret of the broken code. Interviews indicate that many of these individuals haven't been questioned by the FBI.

Among the officials with whom Mr. Chalabi at one time had close ties, for instance, was Douglas J. Feith, who until earlier this year was an undersecretary of defense and headed the Pentagon's powerful office of policy and planning. In an interview, Mr. Feith said he has never been questioned by the FBI or federal prosecutors in connection with the investigation and that if others had been, he was unaware of it.

Lawrence Di Rita, spokesman for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, said in an emailed response to questions that he had no knowledge of the FBI or federal prosecutors having questioned current or former Defense Department officials. "I don't know anything about a [Department of Justice] investigation in this matter," Mr. Di Rita said.

Mr. Chalabi had been considered a trusted ally by influential figures within the administration, but last spring those ties appeared to have ruptured. On May 20 of last year, Iraqi police backed by U.S. troops raided Mr. Chalabi's headquarters, searching for evidence of corruption and leaked American intelligence.

Since then, however, the Bush administration has become more open to dealing with Mr. Chalabi again, spurred on by his rise in the current Iraqi government, the possibility that he might become prime minister and his current control over, among other things, Iraqi oil production.

Mr. Chalabi's visit to Washington this week is his first since the leak allegations. He is scheduled to meet with Treasury Secretary John Snow and with Ms. Rice, now secretary of state. He also is to give a speech to the conservative American Enterprise Institute.

Senate Democrats have been pressing for an investigation into the role Mr. Chalabi played in drumming up support for a war to depose Mr. Hussein. They also are critical of Mr. Chalabi because of alleged corruption; in 1992, he was convicted in absentia by a Jordanian court of having embezzled $288 million from a bank at which he was managing director. He has strongly denied the corruption allegations.

Spokesmen for both Mr. Snow and Ms. Rice said they were meeting with Mr. Chalabi, despite past events, because he is a powerful government figure in Iraq. State Department Iraq adviser James Jeffery said Mr. Chalabi "is deputy prime minister of a critically important country at a critically important time, he was democratically elected, and it's on that basis that we see him."

....I know.....I know.....it's "both parties".....that are "the problem"...time to "clean house".....indpendent candidates.....libertarian candidates....we need smaller government....that's "the problem"....IMO, that's bullshit. We've got 45 million with no health insurance, half the population owning just 2-1/2 percent of all US assets, an estimate of 12 million undocumented aliens, an aging population that will include 47 million turing age 62 by 2027....over the next 20 years......and "we voted"....twice since 2000....to trade the leadership that reduced annual treasury debt increase to just 18 billion in 2000....to a leadership that added an addtional $3500 billion, of total treasury debt....by Jan., 2009 in just the eight years that it ran the executive branch.....that's an average of $412 billion in additional debt per year, and we haven't even listed the ways that the post 2000 leadership have compromised the integrity of the government, national security, law enforcement, judicial impartiality, foreign relations....etc....etc....

Yet, the solution to all of the above, is to "blame both parties", and advocate for a libertarian, small government political movement. Why not get serious and accept that Waxman and Leahy and Conyers, working to restore checks and balances, and a democratic landslide in Nov., 2008 is the best we're gonna get.... Why not accept and understand that this is the best we will achieve, and maybe, not even that. Waxman is relentlessly and methodically providing you with what has gone wrong.....I don't see that the party that was removed after the 2000 election, with it's $18 billion annual debt increase run rate, and no ability to pass legislation or even to hold investigative hearings.....for the house, it's been since 1994, and for the senate, since 1998, with a brief hiatus in late 2001 and part of 2002, can reliably be lumped into a "it's both parties" dismissal.

I can't see that an advocacy for an Ayn Rand styled, libertarian utopia, in the midst of such an imbalance of wealth and power distribution, is anything but unrealistic, escapism. I do see sudden progress in confronting and investigating the perpetrators of what has so badly damaged our government and our fiscal state. The committee chairman in congress who are pursuing the malfeasance are our best and only practicle hope, since we have no stomach for grassroots, civil disobedience. Let's accept that we have but one alternative, and it is at work as we speak.

It is the eleventh hour, and it is very, very dark.....

host · 12-26-2007, 12:01 PM

Snooze on folks....enjoy your holidays. Next year at this time, maybe you'll be wondering how republicans polled so poorly but still "won" the 2008 presidential election, or if the latest terror threat jusitifies demands by Bush/Cheney for an indefinite "term extension". Don't worry about any of that now, enjoy the holidays, post on the "6 questions" thread about advocacy for the death penalty (without fully considering who is of an integrity high enough to entrust to determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.) and your belief that taxes are not for balancing wealth distribution, even though politics are exclusively about distribution of wealth and power, because the alternative, is, and has always been, violence!

Quote:

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'

Snooze on, nothing to see here......

Quote:

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/...bbit_hole.html
When it comes to surveillance and the treatment of classified information, President Bush is making up the rules as he goes along

Marcy Wheeler
December 26, 2007 7:00 PM

....The executive order governing surveillance may not be the only one that Bush has modified without revealing he has done so. It appears that Bush has also <a href="http://www.fas.org/sgp/bush/eoamend.html">modified</a> the executive order governing the treatment of classified information from its plain text meaning.

That particular executive order is one that the office of the vice president (OVP) seemed to be violating for years. Starting in 2003, OVP refused to reveal its classification and declassification activities, as the order required. And when the National Archives came to inspect OVP's classification procedures in 2004, OVP staffers refused to let the inspection take place. Finally, Bill Leonard, who as the head of the information security oversight office is the person in charge of reporting on classified materials, <a href="http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20070621094929.pdf">appealed</a> to the department of justice for guidance. For six months, Leonard got no response. It wasn't until Congress threatened to withdraw funding from Cheney's office that the administration <a href="http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/files/28/files//2007/12/eos-7-12-07-sen-brownback.pdf">bothered to inform anyone</a> that the executive order didn't mean what it appeared to mean. "The president has asked me to confirm to you that ... the office of the vice president, like the president's office, is not an 'agency' for the purposes of the order." And even then, they only <a href="http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/files/28/files//2007/12/eos-7-20-07-doj-to-leonard.pdf">informed Leonard indirectly</a>. As Leonard describes it: <h3>"I was told that the order meant something other than what I (and others) thought a plain text reading would indicate, especially in the context in which it was originally developed."</h3>

This is the stuff of <a href="http://sundials.org/about/humpty.htm">Alice in Wonderland</a> or <a href="http://www.simplych.com/cb_rules.htm">Calvinball</a>, in which cartoonish figures can simply change the rules mid-game. "'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less." "Any player may declare a new rule at any point in the game ... The player may do this audibly or silently depending on what zone ... the player is in." Only in this case, the rules the cartoonish figure keeps changing have very real consequences - affecting our civil rights and our ability to keep classified information secure.

Quote:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/81883/output/print
Challenging Cheney

A National Archives official reveals what the veep wanted to keep classified--and how he tried to challenge the rules
By Michael Isikoff
Newsweek Web Exclusive
Updated: 12:57 PM ET Dec 24, 2007

J. William Leonard learned the hard way the perils of questioning Vice President Dick Cheney. The veteran National Archives official challenged claims by the Office of Vice President (OVP) to be exempt from federal rules governing classified information. His efforts touched off a firestorm—and a counter-strike by Cheney's chief of staff, David Addington, who tried to wipe out Leonard's job. (Addington did not respond to requests for comment on the subject.)

Now, Leonard is quitting as director of the Archives' Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO)—the unit that monitors the handling of government secrets. He tells NEWSWEEK that his fight with Cheney's office was a "contributing" factor in his decision to retire after 34 years of government service.

Leonard-described by National Archivist Allen Weinstein as "the gold standard of information specialists in the federal government"-spoke to NEWSWEEK's Michael Isikoff. Excerpts:

NEWSWEEK: Explain how all this happened.
Leonard: Up until 2002, OVP was just like any other agency. Subsequent to that, they stopped reporting to us…At first, I took that to be, 'we're too busy.' Then we routinely attempted to do a review of the OVP and it was at that point in time it was articulated back to me that: 'well they weren't really subject to our reviews.' I didn't agree with it. But you know, there is a big fence around the White House. I didn't know how I could get in there if somebody didn't want me to.

So how did matters escalate?
The challenge arose last year when the Chicago Tribune was looking at [ISOO's annual report] and saw the asterisk [reporting that it contained no information from OVP] and decided to follow up. And that's when the spokesperson from the OVP made public this idea that because they have both legislative and executive functions, that requirement doesn't apply to them.…They were saying the basic rules didn't apply to them. I thought that was a rather remarkable position. So I wrote my letter to the Attorney General [asking for a ruling that Cheney's office had to comply.] <h3>Then it was shortly after that there were [email] recommendations [from OVP to a National Security Council task force] to change the executive order that would effectively abolish [my] office.

Who wrote the emails?
It was David Addington.</h3>

No explanation was offered?
No. It was strike this, strike that. Anyplace you saw the words, "the director of ISOO" or "ISOO" it was struck.

What was your reaction?
I was disappointed that rather than engage on the substance of an issue, some people would resort to that…

<h3>What rules were they saying didn't apply to them?
The ones that tell you how you mark [classified documents], how you declassify, how you safeguard them, how you store…</h3>

Ultimately, the White House said the president never intended that the vice president would have to comply. This had to have been frustrating -to have been publicly thwarted for doing what you saw as your job?
Well, you know, that I've had 34 years of frustration. That's life in the big city. I also accept that I'm not always right….But this was a big thing as far as I was concerned.

A number of people have noted that the vice president's office stopped reporting to you and complying with ISOO in the fall of 2003 when the whole Valerie Plame case blew up. Do you think there was a connection?
I don't have any insight. I was held at arms length [from that.] But some of the things based on what I've read [have] given me cause for concern. A number of prosecution exhibits [in the Plame-related perjury trial of I. Scooter Libby, Cheney's former chief of staff] were annotated, 'handle as SCI.' SCI is Sensitive Compartmentalized Information, the most sensitive classified information there is. As I recall, [one of them] was [the vice president and his staff] were coming back from Norfolk where they had attended a ship commissioning and they were conferring on the plane about coming up with a [media] response plan [to the allegations of Plame's husband, Iraq war critic Joseph Wilson.] <h3>That was one of the exhibits marked, 'handle as SCI.'</h3>

These were internal communications about what to say to the press?
Let me give you some the irony of that. Part of the National Archives is the presidential libraries….So we're going to have documents [at the libraries] with the most sensitive markings on it that isn't even classified. If I were going to do a review [of OVP], that would be one of the questions I would want to ask: What is this practice? And how widespread is it? And what is the rationale? How do we assure that people don't get this mixed up with real secrets?

Is too much government business conducted in secret?
One of the things I've reflected on lately is that I truly believe we need to introduce a new balancing test. In the past, we've looked at it as, 'we have to balance national security against the public's right to know or whatever.' My balancing test would be national security versus national security: yes, disclosing information may cause damage, but you know what, withholding that information may even cause greater damage… And I don't think we sufficiently taken that into greater account.

The global struggle that we're engaged in today is more than anything else is an ideological struggle. And in my mind….that calls for greater transparency, not less transparency. We're in a situation where we're attempting to win over the hearts and minds of the world's population. And yet, we seem to have a habit—when we restrict information, we're often times find ourselves in a position where we're ceding the playing field to the other side. We allow ourselves to be almost reduced to a caricature by taking positions on certain issues, oh , we simply can't talk about that.

(Note: Asked for comment, Lea A. McBride, spokeswoman for Cheney, pointed to recent comments by Cheney in an interview with the online publication, Politico, on his office's dispute with the National Archives. In the interview, the vice president specifically referred to his position that, because he serves as Secretary of the Senate, his office was not an "entity" in the executive branch governed by the executive order relating to classified information.

"I'm aware of the kerfuffle here a few months ago — is he or isn't he; is he part of the executive branch, part of the legislative branch?" Cheney said. "And the answer really is, you've got a foot in both camps. I obviously work for the president. That's why I'm sitting here in the West Wing of the White House. But I also have a role to play in the Congress as the president of the Senate. I actually get paid — that's where my paycheck comes from, is the Senate. So I try to keep lines open to both sides of the Congress, both the House and the Senate.")

Ustwo · 12-26-2007, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Snooze on folks....enjoy your holidays. Next year at this time, maybe you'll be wondering how republicans polled so poorly but still "won" the 2008 presidential election, or if the latest terror threat jusitifies demands by Bush/Cheney for an indefinite "term extension". Don't worry about any of that now, enjoy the holidays, post on the "6 questions" thread about advocacy for the death penalty (without fully considering who is of an integrity high enough to entrust to determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.) and your belief that taxes are not for balancing wealth distribution, even though politics are exclusively about distribution of wealth and power, because the alternative, is, and has always been, violence!

Snooze on, nothing to see here......

Quote:

More than 120 members, predominantly Republicans, then switched their votes in favor of holding a one-hour debate on the issue, with a final vote of 251-162 supporting a debate on impeachment. Rather than allow a debate fraught with political risk, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) moved to send the Kucinich resolution to the Judiciary Committee, whose chairman, Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), has publicly speculated about impeaching the president or vice president but has declined taking any action since taking the gavel in January.

Defusing any chance of an actual impeachment debate today, the House then voted 218-194 to send the motion to Conyers's committee, with Democrats overwhelmingly supporting the move.

There you go host, we republicans are out to help and support you in your goal!

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/capit...esolution.html

On a unrelated side note, while looking for the quote I found this page...

http://www.thiscantbehappening.net/?q=node/61

Its hysterical spin turning that into some sort of democrat victory.

dc_dux · 12-26-2007, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Quote:

More than 120 members, predominantly Republicans, then switched their votes in favor of holding a one-hour debate on the issue, with a final vote of 251-162 supporting a debate on impeachment. Rather than allow a debate fraught with political risk, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) moved to send the Kucinich resolution to the Judiciary Committee, whose chairman, Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), has publicly speculated about impeaching the president or vice president but has declined taking any action since taking the gavel in January.

Defusing any chance of an actual impeachment debate today, the House then voted 218-194 to send the motion to Conyers's committee,

There you go host, we republicans are out to help and support you in your goal!

Ustwo.....I dont think you understand why the Republicans wanted to have the one hour floor debate on the bill. What would have followed was an immediate up or down floor vote on the Kucinich bill inself......and the result (with both D and R support) would have killed the bill completely once and for all.

The alternative, and the only way to keep the bill alive, was to vote against the floor debate and send the bill to the Judiciary Committee where it may (if Conyer's has the balls) result in open hearings at the Committee level next year, which is probably the best Kucinich and the other impeachment supporters could hope for.

06-23-2007, 10:40 AM	#7 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	ladies and gentlemen, we have lost the vice president's office. we dont know where it is. that is why it does not submit to oversight. we cannot find it, so it cannot recieve requests and directives. of course it "obeys laws" but no particular laws because it is in no particular place. besides at this point there is no separate section of law that delimits what the newly-created independent branch of government called the vice president can and cannot do. so it cannot break any laws because none apply to it: but of course, it observes the relevant laws. it just turns out that there arent any. well, maybe a few. we cant tell you what they are of course. but rest assured that once we find the vice president's office, we will make it submit to oversight. you can be sure of that buckaroo. o yes you can. but we can't find it. the president's office sez that it is ok that we cannot find the vice-president's office because, well, it just is. everything is fine. i feel like we are living in the richard bey show. you remember, the talk show that was the worst of all talk shows, that defied ridicule by ridiculing itself, and so could not be taken as a joke because it presented itself as a joke. and there was something disarming about the richard bey approach. it seems that the bush administration, and its mutant duplicate in the floating head of dick cheney, have studied richard bey long and learned well from it. if only this was tv. if only this was tv. if only this was tv. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 06-23-2007 at 10:43 AM..

06-23-2007, 12:32 PM	#9 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	sovereign at the least. if the person of the president (and vp apparently) is the source of the law, then they cannot be bound by it--they aren't included in the legal system that originates with them. more elements drawn for the legal-theoretical justification for dictatorship outlined by carl schmitt. read political theology sometime and you'll see the logic behind this sort of otherwise bizarre declarations. monarch is also good: like louis xiv said, "i am the state." __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

06-23-2007, 07:29 PM	#12 (permalink)
ubertuber spudly Location: Ellay	I wish to hell I could remember where, but I read a pretty compelling article saying that Cheney may be correct - that the Constitutional duties laid out for the VP only deal with legislative duties. Obviously that brings up the point that our working understanding of the Veep's office is seriously misaligned with that perspective. I do think there is an operative distinction that needs to be made here: what you call it is irrelevant in a way, but no office or branch should be making law and enforcing it. That the executive branch gets to make policy that supports and carries out the law seems to be seriously confused with the authority to actually make laws. __________________ Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

06-24-2007, 07:06 AM	#17 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	As I understand it, the person to determine how the VP is covered under the Executive Order is....surprise, the AG, Alberto Gonzales. ....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. http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?p=507 Six months later, the AG has still not responded to the letter from the National Archives....I guess he's been kinda busy...or he forgot (oh that faulty memory). This does have the making of a serious constitutional confrontation. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

06-24-2007, 07:14 AM	#18 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	the washington post began a series on cheney this morning. it is interesting, if late in the game. and long, so here's a link to chapter 1: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/chene...ers/chapter_1/ __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

06-23-2007, 05:15 AM	#2 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	That "god damned piece of paper", the Constitution, is circling the toilet bowl.

06-23-2007, 08:52 AM	#4 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	I hope that the next president that comes in along with the next congress enact constitutional legislation which clarifies the powers of the branches. In other words, removes signing statements, puts the president back under the eye of the legislative, and returns accountability of both the legislative and executive branch to the people. This is a ridiculous argument used to stall. This needs to be taken to court immediately.

06-24-2007, 12:53 AM	#14 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	This is a result of having the stupidest people in the world in jobs that require the smartest people in the world. Of course the President and VP are in the executive. To say otherwise is to brand yourself more ignorant than an elementary school child. This stuff is all covered in basic government. It's impeachment time, people. It has been for a while.

06-24-2007, 04:44 AM	#15 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	I am beginning to agree that impeachment hearings are inevitable. It almost seems as if the Administration is testing the capabilities of the Government to self regulate. Unfortunately, it also seems this government is incapable of doing so at this point. In a nutshell: The Executive Branch has now claimed immunity from oversight. The Judiciary is unwilling, or incapable of challenging this assertion. The Legislature cannot challenge without the backing of the judiciary short of Impeachment. The population cannot correct the trend without serious revolt. Impeachment seems a viable course of action.

06-24-2007, 06:37 AM	#16 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	If he is not part of the executive branch then why does he keep claiming executive privilege when being asked to testify? Wouldn't his assertion that he is not part of the executive branch also mean he looses any and all claims to executive privilege?

06-24-2007, 06:53 PM	#20 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	This sounds like failed government. Where is the oversight?

06-25-2007, 11:50 PM	#22 (permalink)
fastom Psycho Location: way out west	The whole works of them needs to be run out of office and then charged, tried and executed for their roles in 9/11 and the wars. Aren't there enough brave politicians willing to get the impeachment rolling? Another year and a half and there won't me much of a country left to save.