ADDINGTON REBUKES KERRY On VP's Secrecy Oversight!!!

[kpete]

Cheney's chief of staff rebukes Kerry on VP's secrecy oversight John Byrne
Published: Tuesday June 26, 2007

Dick Cheney's chief of staff, David Addington, issued a letter to Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) today defending the Vice President's interpretation of his office being outside the executive branch - only this time, he said it was because Cheney's office isn't an "agency."

A copy of the letter from David Addington to Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., was released to RAW STORY. Kerry said the "legalistic" response from Addington "raises more questions than it purports to answer."

"Dear Senator Kerry," Addington writes. "The executive order on classified national security information -- Executive Order 12958 as amended in 2003 -- makes clear that the Vice President is treated like the President and distinguishes the two of them from 'agencies.'"

No longer satisfied with the Vice President's office's claim that Cheney is actually an admixture between the legislative and executive branch, Addington now posits that the Vice President's office is not an "agency."

more at:
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Cheneys_chief_of_staff_rebukes_Kerry_0626.html

[jimshoes]

1. More like a criminal enterprise

than anything else.

[NewJeffCT]

2. I wonder what the next explanation will be?

first it was he was his own branch of government, then it was he was party legislative and part executive, now its that he is not an agency...

maybe next, he'll be part of the judicial system?

[hobbit709]

3. We can only hope he'll be part of the judicial system

As in "Defendant"

[Kagemusha]

4. I thought the key word was not "agency," but rather, "entity"

as in, "and any other entity" besides just agencies.

Is Addington going to claim the office isn't an entity either?

[JDPriestly]

5. The actual power over the agencies belongs to Congress

Perhaps Congress needs to change some of the laws pursuant to which it delegates authority to certain agencies to handle some of this information and the oversight of intelligence material. Clearly, members of Congress (which is according to the Constitution the breach of government that declares war) were not given adequate access to all of the intelligence that Cheney and Bush had prior to the Iraq War. At the same time, Cheney was reviewing and using intelligence without oversight or review, in short, without answering to anyone but himself with regard to how he manipulated the intelligence, or used it for political gain or even financial gain.

Congress needs to act to make sure no president, vice president, senator, representative or judge can use intelligence without oversight in the manner that Bush and Cheney allow themselves to do. Sure, Bush can pretty much do what he wants to do, but he should do it in a manner that is transparent as to his methods and which can be reviewed by historians, friends and foes -- not as to the intelligence itself, but as to how it is used, transmitted, protected, etc. Congress can do this by limiting the power they delegate to the CIA and other intelligence agencies including military intelligence agencies for making the rules that govern how their information is handled. Congress does not command the military while at war, but it does control the money that goes to the military intelligence and is responsible for making "rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces." U.S. Const. Art. I, Sect. 8(14). I should think that would include establishing the rules for handling military intelligence.

In the past, there have been breaches of intelligence -- sometimes even unauthorized disclosures by critics of an administration. These breaches however have hopefully been discovered. Those that were discovered were swiftly and pretty harshly punished. Remember Sandy Berger. Just what he did was never really clear to me, but he was, I believe convicted of a misdemeanor. I don't think what he did was intended to harm anyone. Who knows what Cheney has been doing with our national secrets -- selling them to Halliburton or the Chinese? Who knows. Anything is possible. He sure is hiding something. The line between misusing secrets and treason is very thin. Would it be treason if Cheney gave state secrets to someone at Halliburton, even a friend. Halliburton is an international company with interests all over the world, not just in the U.S. It does business in countries and necessarily shares information with and in countries that are just a slight change in regime away from the "enemies of the U.S. list."

By the way, read the Constitution, Art. I, Sect. 8 (11). Congress is not only supposed to declare war but to "make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water." Doesn't that mean that Congress could make rules re the prisoners on Guantanamo and also with regard to abolishing torture? It seems to me that is Congress's job, not Bush's based on that portion of the Constitution.

[TheMadMonk]

7. I do believe you might be right re: A1S8(11)

Congress has the constitutional authority to define exactly what is and isn't permissible regarding any prisoners taken and/or held by the US armed forced in a time of war.

Of course I could do a linguistic dance all around whether or not this would apply to "illegal enemy combatants" as I'm sure the administration would. So I don't know how useful this would be in the short term.

[JDPriestly]

9. "Captures on Land and Water" sounds broad enough to me

to include "illegal enemy combatants." There may be some precedent interpreting the term to exclude them, but I doubt it. They are not insurgents and even if they were, Congress would have authority over that too. Read Section 8 of Article 1. It is pretty inclusive.

[blogslut]

6. I like Kerry's reply

From another kpete thread:

You also characterize these constitutional questions as occurring in a "theoretical discussion" but that is not the case. The Vice President’s non-compliance with this executive order came to light through an investigation done by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and questions raised by Congressman Henry Waxman, the chairman of that committee. The care and handling of classified information is not a theoretical issue, it is a justified concern of Congress executing its oversight function.

Executive Order 12958 clearly states that, "‘Agency’ means any ‘Executive agency,’ as defined in 5 U.S.C. 105; any ‘Military department’ as defined in 5 U.S.C. 102; and any other entity within the executive branch that comes into the possession of classified information." Your view that the Office of the Vice President is not an "agency" does not address the fact that Vice President Cheney is clearly within the executive branch and it is through that position that he is privy to classified information.

Again, I ask you to respond to the questions raised in my first letter and the additional question posted herein...

link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1189985

[alcibiades_mystery]

8. David Addington's Prologemena to any Future Metaphysics...

Entities, agencies, etc.

First we had the poetry of D.H. Rumsfeld. Now we have the metaphysics of Richard Cheney. It's like freshman year up here.