Breaking: Senate Judiciary Committee Issues Subpoenas For NSA Domestic Spying Documents

[Hissyspit]

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/21/nsa-docs-supoena

Senate Judiciary Committee Issues Subpoenas For NSA Domestic Spying Documents

The Senate Judiciary Committee just voted 13-3 to authorize chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) to issue subpoenas for documents related to the NSA warrantless surveillance program. Sens. Arlen Specter (R-PA), Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA) voted with the Democrats on the committee to authorize the subpoenas for any legal opinions and advice the Bush administration has received regarding the NSA program.

The Center on Democracy & Technology has released a list of the seven “most wanted surveillance documents.” See the full list here.

The confrontation over the documents “could set the stage for a constitutional showdown over the separation of powers.” The Senate Judiciary Committee had previously scheduled to authorize subpoenas last week, but Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) blocked the Judiciary Committee from voting on the subpoenas.

On May 21, the Senate Judiciary Committee made at least its ninth formal request for documents related to President Bush’s warrantless domestic surveillance program, but the Justice Department continued its stonewalling. Leahy issued the following statement about today’s vote:

This stonewalling is unacceptable and it must end. If the Administration will not carry out its responsibility to provide information to this Committee without a subpoena, we will issue one. If we do not, we are letting this Administration decide whether and how the Congress will do its job. ...

Why has this Administration been so steadfast in its refusal? Deputy Attorney General Comey’s account suggests that some of these documents would reveal an Administration perfectly willing to ignore the law. Is that what they are hiding? ...

Whatever the reason for the stonewalling, this Committee has stumbled in the dark for too long, attempting to do its job without the information it needs. We need this information to carry out our responsibilities under the Constitution. Unfortunately, it has become clear that we will not get it without a subpoena. I urge the adoption of the subpoena authorization.

MORE

http://www.cdt.org/security/20070620wanteddocs.php

Most Wanted Surveillance Documents

1. Memorandum prepared by former Deputy Attorney General James Comey which, according to Comey, was sent to the White House shortly after March 10, 2004. The memorandum followed a review of the classified surveillance program (to which Comey referred in his May 15, 2007 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee) and it apparently explained why the Department of Justice in 2004 would not certify the surveillance program as lawful.

2. Memorandum from Department of Justice former Assistant Attorney General Jack Goldsmith, who participated in the DOJ’s review of the classified surveillance program. This memorandum was attached to the Comey memorandum and was prepared in the same time frame as that document.

3. Department of Justice Office of Intelligence Policy and Review legal memorandum discussing the classified surveillance program, and drafts of that document. The final document was probably prepared in early March, 2004.

4. Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memorandum prepared in early 2004 -- by Comey's account -- laying out OLC’s legal concerns about the classified program.

MORE

[wicket]

1. K & R

:kick:

[L. Coyote]

22. kick again

[Raven]

2. Question: Are these subpoenas going to be enforced and,

when and how?

[zanne]

5. That's the important question.

They can issue subpoena after subpoena, but if the administration just ignores them, they're just pieces of paper.

[L. Coyote]

17. Subpoenas are enforceable. That is why they are issued.

Let's not confuse requests with subpoenas. Not respoonding is a chargeable offense.
A subpoena is a legal demand, and carries criminal repercussions.
Of course, the nation's top cops are the ones being subpoenaed!
It only takes one honest cop to charge criminal obstruction.

==========================
Senate Judiciary Committee
Authorizes Chairman Leahy To Issue Subpoenas
Related To Administration’s Domestic Surveillance Program
http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200706/062107.html

Bipartisan Vote For Authorization To Compel
Justice Dept., Admin. Officials To Provide Legal Analysis For Program

WASHINGTON (Thursday, June 21) -- The Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday authorized Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), in consultation with Ranking Member Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), to issue subpoenas for documents relating to the authorization and legal justification for the Administration's warrantless wiretapping program.

In a bipartisan vote of 13-3, the Committee authorized Chairman Leahy to issue subpoenas to the Department of Justice and to the Executive Office of the President relating to information the Committee has requested several times since the program was first revealed in December 2005. Ranking Member Specter and Senators Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) supported the authorization, along with all Democratic members of the Committee.

“This Committee has sought information about the authorization of and legal justification for this program time and again – in letters, at hearings, and in written questions,” Leahy said. “Yet this Administration has rebuffed all requests. Last month, Senator Specter and I wrote again to Attorney General Gonzales requesting these documents. We have still received no documents and no explanation. This stonewalling is unacceptable and it must end. If the Administration will not carry out its responsibility to provide information to this Committee without a subpoena, we will issue one.”

==== Text of Subpoena Authorization ====

Motion Of Senator Patrick Leahy
Chairman, Committee On The Judiciary
June 21, 2007

Be it resolved that, pursuant to its authority under Rules 25 and 26 of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary hereby authorizes its Chairman, in consultation with the
Ranking Member, to issue subpoenas to: 1) the Honorable Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General of the United States, and 2) the Custodian of Records at the Executive Office of the President, to provide the
Committee with all documents related to the Committee's investigation into the Administration's operation of a warrantless domestic surveillance program outside of the provisions of the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act, and its legal analysis for this program.

[krispos42]

3. Get'em Leahy! Get the fuckers!!!!!

<to insure the quality of your patriotism your computer is being monitored by the NSA>

[proud patriot]

4. Go get 'em

:woohoo:

[PSPS]

6. Big deal. More subpoenas for the round file at the white house.

Less subpoenas, more handcuffs.

[MiniMe]

7. I understand Specter and Grassley voting with the Dems, but HATCH???

Specter and Grassley seem to be getting disenfranchised with the administration, especially Specter. Although Specter is usually all talk and then votes the opposite way. But Hatch is the biggest Bush whore there is. When Timmy was trying to find somebody for MTP to go on with Leahy about Gonzo, Hatch was the only person that they could get to deliver the repuke talking points.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

9. Hmmm...

There is something going on, on the "down low"(and I don't mean Hatch's rumored true proclivities) in the repukes, if Hatch voted for this.

I would not be surprised if Cheney's recent placement of himself, above the law and outside of congressional oversight, might have something to do with this. Perhaps that one opened a few eyes.

[MiniMe]

13. Perhaps positioning himself for the AG job?

That was the rumor about a month ago.

[BlooInBloo]

Is he up for re-election?

[DFW]

19. I'm as floored as you are

Hatch must have been having an epileptic seizure at the time of the vote. He NEVER votes with us on stuff like this.
There must be a few more smoking guns out there than we are being told about.

[orleans]

8. k&r--can we arrest these fuckers yet? please? n/t

[EnviroBat]

10. Yes, and next come the stern letters!

Ooooo :scared:

[here_is_to_hope]

20. *snicker!*

and so true...

[BlooInBloo]

11. From reading the article, that appears to be false headline,

[spanone]

12. K&R

[Hissyspit]

14. .

[Supersedeas]

15. About damned time.

[L. Coyote]

16. Campaign 2004: Were Bush / Cheney / NSA illegal wiretaps spying on Dems?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x925247

[L. Coyote]

18. Statement Of Sen. Patrick Leahy

Statement Of Sen. Patrick Leahy,
Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee,
On Authorization For Subpoenas
In Connection With The Investigation Of The Legal Basis
For The Warrantless Electronic Surveillance Program
Executive Business Meeting
June 21, 2007 - http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200706/062107.html


rtsp://avs1.senate.gov/334674062120075811.rm


http://leahy.senate.gov/POD/07JUN/062107.mp3

Today I will ask the Committee to provide the authorization to issue subpoenas for documents relating to the National Security Agency’s warrantless domestic electronic surveillance program. This is an authorization I first circulated two weeks ago and that was formally held over by Senator Kyl last week.

For more than five years this Administration intercepted conversations of Americans in the United States without obtaining court orders under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). This program became public in December 2005 and, soon after, the President confirmed its existence. Since then, this Committee has sought information about the authorization of and legal justification for this program time and again – in letters, at hearings, and in written questions. Yet, this Administration has rebuffed all requests. Last month, Senator Specter and I wrote again to Attorney General Gonzales requesting these documents. We have still received no documents and no explanation.

This stonewalling is unacceptable and it must end. If the Administration will not carry out its responsibility to provide information to this Committee without a subpoena, we will issue one. If we do not, we are letting this Administration decide whether and how the Congress will do its job. The Judiciary Committee is charged with overseeing and legislating on constitutional protections and the civil liberties of Americans, and the warrantless electronic surveillance program directly impacts these responsibilities.

Instead of responses, our attempts to get straight answers from the Administration have met with stubborn refusals of our legitimate oversight requests. This is information we need, we should have, and whose production is long overdue. We are asking not for intimate operational details but for the legal justifications and analysis underlying these programs that affect the rights of every American.

When we held our first hearing with Attorney General Gonzales about this program, on February 6, 2006, he refused to answer simple questions or discuss anything more than “those facts the President has publicly confirmed.” He defended the program as “necessary” and “very narrowly tailored,” but he refused to back up these self-serving conclusions. He asserted that the Authorization for the Use of Military Force passed after September 11 authorized this warrantless wiretapping of Americans, yet would not even tell me when the Justice Department had come up with this particular legal justification. This pattern of evasion has continued with every hearing, every letter, and every written response.

Last month, we heard deeply troubling testimony from former Deputy Attorney General James Comey about a dispute over the legality of the warrantless electronic surveillance program. When the senior Department of Justice leadership refused to certify the legality of the program, the White House – including the then-Counsel to the President, Mr. Gonzales – attempted to strong-arm an ailing Attorney General Ashcroft in his hospital bed. When that did not work, they decided simply to ignore the law and authorize the program anyway. Only the prospect of a mass resignation of virtually every senior officer in the Department of Justice, including the FBI Director, caused the President to relent.

Yet, when Attorney General Gonzales was asked at that February 6, 2006, hearing before this Committee whether senior Justice Department officials expressed reservations about the NSA warrantless surveillance program, he responded, “I do not believe that these DOJ officials . . . had concerns about this program.” The Committee and the American people deserve better.

There is no legitimate argument for withholding these materials from this Committee. There is abundant precedent for providing Executive Branch legal analysis to the Congress, particularly to this Committee. Indeed, volumes upon volumes of Attorney General and Office of Legal Counsel legal opinions have even been made public. Sometimes in previous Administrations a particularly sensitive subject has resulted in an accommodation between branches on the manner in which it was shared. But this Administration has no policy of accommodation. Its policy is to deny and to stonewall. Neither is the fact that the matters involve classified information a reason to withhold these legal documents. Congress receives sensitive classified information regularly.

Why has this Administration been so steadfast in its refusal? Deputy Attorney General Comey’s account suggests that some of these documents would reveal an Administration perfectly willing to ignore the law. Is that what they are hiding?

When the Department of Justice’s own Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) began an internal investigation into the conduct of Department of Justice attorneys who approved this program, Attorney General Gonzales and the White House shut them down by denying them the necessary clearances. The head of OPR noted when he was forced to stand down that in its 31-year history OPR had never before been prevented from pursuing an investigation. Senators Durbin, Kennedy, Feingold, and Whitehouse have diligently sought documents on this series of events many times, but, again, have received no response.

Finally, I will note that this Administration is now asking Congress to make sweeping changes to FISA – a crucial national security authority over which this Committee has jurisdiction. The White House wants us to agree to far-reaching changes to that authority, but the Administration stubbornly refuses to let us know how it interprets the current law and the perceived flaws that led it to operate a program outside of the process established by FISA for more than five years. This legal analysis is information the Committee must have in order to make informed legislative decisions. As the Supreme Court said in McGrain v. Daugherty, “ legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information respecting the conditions which the legislation is intended to affect or change.”

Whatever the reason for the stonewalling, this Committee has stumbled in the dark for too long, attempting to do its job without the information it needs. We need this information to carry out our responsibilities under the Constitution. Unfortunately, it has become clear that we will not get it without a subpoena. I urge the adoption of the subpoena authorization.

# # # # #

[L. Coyote]

21. K&R