A law must be passed that automatically imposes jail time upon any individual who

[hisownpetard]

disregards a subpoena to appear before a Congressional committee. Period.

The fact that all of Bush's appointees and clones have thumbed their collective noses at Congress (and us) and blithely gone on their way - unharmed,
unpunished and unrepentant, has set the example that now even Todd Palin is following.

Karl Rove, smiling out at his subjects from their TV screens turned to FAUX, reinforces the idea that Republicans are all above the law and can even be
rewarded for their blatant disregard of our laws with a TV contract as a commentator.

This is why Rove, Gonzales, Miers, Bolton, et al (right up to Cheney and his Vice President, George Bush) MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE.

We have to reverse the damning precedent that has been set and is already having pernicious repercussions in 'copycat' cases, such as what is now happening
in Alaska.

Enough!

[mtnester]

1. No, what NEEDS done

is the seargent at arms needs to be called to arrest them. There is complete undisturbed, historic and reinforced law to do so. No need for a new law that is unecessary.

Instead of referring a contempt citation to the U.S. attorney, a house of Congress can order the sergeant-at-arms to take these reluctant and scoff-law witnesses into custody and have them held until they agree to cooperate...an order of civil contempt if you will.

[hisownpetard]

2. That's what I used to think, but then why is Karl Rove allowed to ignore it, time after time?

[mtnester]

8. Because neither of our houses of Congress

have the guts to compel/issue the arrest warrant



edit - grammar

[hisownpetard]

9. Right. Which is why I think the decision should be taken out of their hands and jail should be

automatic and mandatory.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. How Is That Done Logistically?

It seems you would need the cooperation from other branches of law enforcement...

[mtnester]

7. No, it is the power to compel

and a congressional house can issue an arrest warrant to the seargent at arms, who can precipiate the arrest and house the prisoner (that is what you become when arrested) in proper facilities.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. If I'm In , Say, Alaska, Who Is Going To Come Get Me?

~

[hisownpetard]

11. They have the power but not the guts. If it were compulsory that the person be arrested if they do

not comply, then the burden of making that decision would no longer be in their hands.

[hamsterjill]

15. I agree totally!

The complete and utter disregard for these subpoenas is going to set legal precedent that is going to be far reaching and not in a good way.

These people need to follow the law just like the rest of us have to. They are no better than you or I.

Throw their butts in jail and let them sit there until they are ready to comply with the issued subpoena.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

3. Technically, You Can Be Arrested For Ignoring A Congressional Subpoena

A DUer with more knowledge of the subject can explain how.

[hisownpetard]

4. Apparently, the people who can authorize this (I assume it's Pelosi and/or Reid) don't

have th guts to do it. That's why I think it should be an automatic progression, so that there is no
prerogative involved.

[hisownpetard]

6. Seems that Todd doesn't feel like going because he's too busy "campaigning," i.e. standing on

stages like a stooge.

Maybe if he or his wife went home they could hold their new-born baby for a few minutes.

Btw, anyone seen that baby since the convention? Poor thing seems to be just an afterthought for his busy Mom and Dad.
I guess they just tell him, "Country first, kiddo."

[kentuck]

12. There is already a law...

They are just flaunting it.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

13. Yep.

[hisownpetard]

14. But the law that is already on the books has no teeth and no automatic penalty, as I

understand it. That's what needs to be changed, because the powers that be are apparently
too chickensh** to enforce any penalty.