Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

from the Office of U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy on Bush Administration Subpoenas

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-27-07 12:58 PM
Original message
from the Office of U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy on Bush Administration Subpoenas
Edited on Wed Jun-27-07 01:22 PM by bigtree
Senate Judiciary Committee Issues Subpoenas
For Legal Basis Of Bush Administration’s
Domestic Surveillance Program


WASHINGTON (Wednesday, June 27) – Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), in consultation with Ranking Member Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), issued subpoenas Wednesday for documents relating to the authorization and legal justification for the Administration's warrantless wiretapping program.

Chairman Leahy issued subpoenas to the Department of Justice, the Office of the White House, the Office of the Vice President and the National Security Council for documents relating to the Committee’s inquiry into the warrantless electronic surveillance program. The subpoenas seek documents related to authorization and reauthorization of the program or programs; the legal analysis or opinions about the surveillance; orders, decisions, or opinions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) concerning the surveillance; agreements between the Executive Branch and telecommunications or other companies regarding liability for assisting with or participating in the surveillance; and documents concerning the shutting down of an investigation of the Department of Justice’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) relating to the surveillance.

“Over the past 18 months, this Committee has made no fewer than nine formal requests to the Department of Justice and to the White House, seeking information and documents about the authorization of and legal justification for this program,” Chairman Leahy wrote in letters accompanying the subpoenas to Bush Administration officials. “All requests have been rebuffed. Our attempts to obtain information through testimony of Administration witnesses have been met with a consistent pattern of evasion and misdirection.”

“There is no legitimate argument for withholding the requested materials from this Committee,” Leahy wrote. “The Administration cannot thwart the Congress’s conduct of its constitutional duties with sweeping assertions of secrecy and privilege. The Committee seeks no intimate operational facts and we are willing to accommodate legitimate redactions of the documents we seek to eliminate reference to these details.”

Last week the Committee, in a bipartisan vote of 13-3, authorized Chairman Leahy to issue subpoenas for documents and information related to the domestic surveillance program. The Committee has requested the legal justification for the program several times since it was first revealed in December 2005. The deadline for providing the Committee the information is July 18.


http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200706/062707a.html


Subpoenas: http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200706/6-27-07%20VP%20Subpoena%20Packet.pdf

Subpoena packet for documents from the White House, sent via Fred Fielding, Esq.

Subpoena packet for documents from the Office of the Vice President, sent via Shannen Coffin, Esq.

Subpoena packet for documents from the Department of Justice, sent via A.G. Alberto Gonzales

Subpoena packet for documents from the National Security Council, sent via Richard Klingler, Esq.

http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200706/6-27-07%20NSC%20Subpoena%20Packet.pdf

CONTACT: Office of Senator Leahy, 202-224-4242


from the subpoena:

June 27,2007
Richard Klingler,Esq.
Senior Associate Counsel to the President,
National Security Counsel Legal Advisor and General Counsel
Eisenhower Executive Office Building
1650 Pennsylvania Avenue,N.W.,Rm 348
Washington,DC 20504

Dear Mr.Klingler:

For more than five years, the Bush Administration intercepted conversations of Americans in the United States without warrants and without following the procedures of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The President confirmed this fact soon after it became public in December 2005. Since that time, the Senate Judiciary Committee has conducted an inquiry into this warrantless electronic surveillance. Over the past 18 months, this Committee has made no fewer than nine formal requests to the Department of Justice and to the White House, seeking information and documents about the authorization of and legal justification for this program. All requests have been rebuffed. Our attempts to obtain information through testimony of Administration witnesses have been met with a consistent pattern of evasion and misdirection.

Therefore, attached is a subpoena for documents related to the Committee's inquiry into the program or programs of warrantless electronic surveillance. The subpoena seeks, among other things,documents related to authorization and reauthorization of that surveillance; legal analysis or opinions about the surveillance; orders, decisions, or opinions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) concerning the surveillance; agreements between the Executive Branch and telecommunications or other companies regarding liability for assisting with or participating in the surveillance; and documents concerning the shutting down of an investigation of the Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR)concerning the surveillance. This Committee's inquiry into this warrantless electronic surveillance is essential to the performance of its constitutional legislative and oversight responsibilities.

The Administration has asked Congress to make sweeping changes to FISA -a crucial national security authority over which the Judiciary Committee has jurisdiction. It is impossible to make informed legislative decisions without understanding fully the Administration's interpretation of FISA and the perceived flaws in that legislation that led the Administration to operate a program outside of its provisions for more than five years

It is not enough to know the Administration's current legal justification for the surveillance. All indications are that the legal analysis supporting this program of warrantless surveillance,and perhaps the program itself, has changed more than once since its inception; it could very well change again. For the Congress to legislate effectively in this area it must have full information about the Executive Branch's interpretations of FISA and how those interpretations have affected its enforcement of the Act.

The Administration's FISA proposal also contains provisions that would bring to an end lawsuits concerning participation of telecommunications carriers and other companies in this program of warrantless surveillance. This Committee cannot responsibly consider those provisions without knowing what government officials and the companies understood to be the legal basis for that participation at the time it occurred. The Supreme Court has said that "(a legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information respecting the conditions which the legislation is intended to affect or change,"McGrain v.Dougherty,273 U.S.135,175 (1927).

The documents this Committee seeks are just that sort of information and we cannot do our job without them. In addition,the Judiciary Committee is charged with oversight of the Executive Branch in the areas of constitutional protections and the civil liberties of Americans. The warrantless electronic surveillance program directly impacts those responsibilities. We cannot conduct this oversight without knowing the legal arguments the Administration has used to justify interception of the communications of Americans without a warrant.

This Committee would be abdicating its responsibility if it failed to examine Executive Branch actions simply because we are told they have stopped. We have been given no assurance that these activities,or similar ones,will not resume based on the same or similar legal arguments. This Committee must conduct oversight to consider whether it wishes to act,through legislation or otherwise,to prevent such recurrence. Oversight is also necessary to determine whether the Administration has conducted itself appropriately in carrying out and defending this warrantless surveillance.

The testimony of former Deputy Attorney General James Corney before this Committee raises serious questions about the Administration's commitment to the rule of law. He testified that only the prospect of a mass resignation of virtually every senior officer in the Department of Justice caused the President to address serious Justice Department concerns about legality of the program. This came after the program had already been operating for more than two years.

Later, when Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was asked during testimony before this Committee whether senior Justice Department officials expressed reservations about the warrantless surveillance program,the Attorney General responded "I do not believe that these DOJ officials ...had concerns about this program. "That response,at the very least,calls into question the Attorney General's candor with this Committee. Finally,when the Department of Justice's own Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) began an internal investigation into the role of Department of Justice attorneys in the authorization and oversight of the warrantless surveillance program, the Department of Justice and the White House denied the investigators the clearances they needed, thereby shutting the investigation down. The head of OPR has noted that in its 3I-year history OPR has never before been prevented from pursuing an investigation.

This action, too, raises questions about the Administration's motives and behavior. There is no legitimate argument for withholding the requested materials from this Committee. The Administration cannot thwart the Congress's conduct of its constitutional duties with sweeping assertions of secrecy and privilege. The Committee seeks no intimate operational facts and we are willing to accommodate legitimate redactions of the documents we seek to eliminate reference to these details. We ask that you segregate any documents containing classified national security information and deliver those separately to the Office of Senate Security in Room S-407 of the Capitol, where they will be maintained in compliance with all security laws and regulations. Only Committee members and appropriately cleared staffwill be permitted to review them.

I continue to hope that the Administration will cooperate with the Committee's
investigation;this Committee remains willing to work to with you and accommodate legitimate concerns in connection with your compliance with this subpoena. I look forward to your compliance with the Judiciary Committee's subpoena by the return date of July 18,2007.

Sincerely,

Sen. Patrick Leahy

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
L. Coyote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-27-07 01:01 PM
Response to Original message
1. Subpoena packet links
Edited on Wed Jun-27-07 01:02 PM by L. Coyote
Subpoena packet for documents from the White House, sent via Fred Fielding, Esq.
http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200706/6-27-07%20WH%20Subpoena%20Packet.pdf

Subpoena packet for documents from the Office of the Vice President, sent via Shannen Coffin, Esq.
http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200706/6-27-07%20VP%20Subpoena%20Packet.pdf

Subpoena packet for documents from the Department of Justice, sent via A.G. Alberto Gonzales
http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200706/6-27-07%20DOJ%20Subpoena%20Packet.pdf

Subpoena packet for documents from the National Security Council, sent via Richard Klingler, Esq.
http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200706/6-27-07%20NSC%20Subpoena%20Packet.pdf
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L. Coyote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-27-07 01:07 PM
Response to Original message
2. Senate Judiciary Committee Authorizes Chairman Leahy To Issue Subpoenas
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.”

Below is the text of the subpoena authorization as well as Chairman Leahy’s statement from the Committee’s Executive Business Meeting earlier today. Also available is a May 21st letter from Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Specter reiterating earlier requests for information about the legal justification for the domestic surveillance program from the Department of Justice.

# # # # #

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.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L. Coyote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-27-07 01:11 PM
Response to Original message
3. Statement Of Sen. Patrick Leahy, On Authorization For Subpoenas VIDEO LINK
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


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


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

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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-27-07 01:48 PM
Response to Original message
4. heh,
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-27-07 02:17 PM
Response to Original message
5. .
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donkeyotay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-27-07 02:24 PM
Response to Original message
6. Head of 4th Branch to Patrick, "Go f*** yerself"
When Abu Ghraib was still a story, the Stars and Stripes wrote an op-ed that said, yeah, there were a few bad apples...and they were at the top. Same bad apples. Same crime family. Same trashing of our government.

The ends justify the means. Whether it's authorizing torture, gaming elections, auctioning off our government behind closed doors, or obstructing justice, bush/cheney aren't going to let a few quaint principles stand between them and success.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-27-07 03:06 PM
Response to Original message
7. we should get behind this action like we get behind everything else
and not allow ourselves to be discouraged from that support by folks who are panning everything short of impeachment.

These actions could very well lead to the remedies folks claim to be so concerned with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-27-07 03:54 PM
Response to Original message
8. .
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-27-07 10:09 PM
Response to Original message
9. kick
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 02:55 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC