Administration Faces Supoenas From 9/11 Panel

[sMiLeYz]

"Any document that has to do with this investigation cannot be beyond our reach," Mr. Kean said on Friday in his first explicit public warning to the White House that it risked a subpoena and a politically damaging courtroom showdown with the commission over access to the documents, including Oval Office intelligence reports that reached President Bush (news - web sites)'s desk in the weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks.

"I will not stand for it," Mr. Kean said in the interview in his offices here at Drew University, where he has been president since 1990.

"That means that we will use every tool at our command to get hold of every document."

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=68&u=/nyt/20031025/ts_nyt/administrationfacessupoenasfrom911panel&printer=1

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Two words


Executive Privilege

 

[nowareman]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Two words


Executive Privilege

If the Bush administration doesn't cooperate and tries to hide behind executive privilege it will backfire on them. The families of the people who died on 9/11 brought pressure to bear that created the 9/11 commission and they won't sit still for anyone sweeping the truth under the rug. Not even Bush.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Two words


Executive Privilege

I think we (the law) can pierce the privilege vail if it is raised to hide evidence of criminal activity. Even Attorney/Client privilege test fails if it contains evidence of criminal activity in and of itself or workpapers.. IMO

I doubt there could be raised a criminal activity allegation here, though.

 

[her209]

I guess this means Kean will be going to Guantanamo soon.

 

[Bowfinger]

I am curious how the Bush apologists rationalize the Bush administration's lack of cooperation. Why? If Bush and his lieutenants are the fine Americans you believe them to be, what possible reasons do they have for anything less than complete, unconditional cooperation? Even if you believe their actions are legal due to "executive privilege" or whatever, why are they necessary? Why are they hiding behind excuses when full and forthright disclosure is obviuosly in America's best interests?

 

[DealMonkey]

The more information and/or documents that the administration keeps under tight secrecy - the less they can be held responsible for. I think their tactic is fairly obvious. The 9/11 commission asked for cooperation and didn't get it - therefore the need for supoenas. Frankly, I feel they should have skipped the "asking nicely" part and just gone straight for the supoenas. It's becoming standard MO for the administration to block information requests, so why bother asking?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

He said that while he had not directly threatened a subpoena in his recent conversations with the White House legal counsel, Alberto R. Gonzales, "it's always on the table, because they know that Congress in their wisdom gave us the power to subpoena, to use it if necessary."
....
Despite the threat of a subpoena and his warning of the possibility of a court battle over the documents, Mr. Kean said he maintained a good relationship with Mr. Gonzales and others at the White House, and that he was still hopeful that the White House would produce all of the classified material demanded by the panel without a subpoena.


"We've been very successful in getting a lot of materials that I don't think anybody has ever seen before," he said of his earlier dealings with the White House. "Within the legal constraints that they seem to have, they've been fully cooperative. But we're not going to be satisfied until we get every document that we need."

CkG

 

[nowareman]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

He said that while he had not directly threatened a subpoena in his recent conversations with the White House legal counsel, Alberto R. Gonzales, "it's always on the table, because they know that Congress in their wisdom gave us the power to subpoena, to use it if necessary."
....
Despite the threat of a subpoena and his warning of the possibility of a court battle over the documents, Mr. Kean said he maintained a good relationship with Mr. Gonzales and others at the White House, and that he was still hopeful that the White House would produce all of the classified material demanded by the panel without a subpoena.


"We've been very successful in getting a lot of materials that I don't think anybody has ever seen before," he said of his earlier dealings with the White House. "Within the legal constraints that they seem to have, they've been fully cooperative. But we're not going to be satisfied until we get every document that we need."

CkG

The chairman of the federal commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks said that the White House was continuing to withhold several highly classified intelligence documents from the panel and that he was prepared to subpoena the documents if they were not turned over within weeks.

The chairman, Thomas H. Kean, the former Republican governor of New Jersey, also said in an interview that he believed the bipartisan 10-member commission would soon be forced to issue subpoenas to other executive branch agencies because of continuing delays by the Bush administration in providing documents and other evidence needed by the panel.

"But I've argued very strongly with the White House that we are unique, that we are not the Congress, that these arguments about presidential privilege do not apply in the case of our commission," he said.

"Anything that has to do with 9/11, we have to see it ? anything. There are a lot of theories about 9/11, and as long as there is any document out there that bears on any of those theories, we're going to leave questions unanswered. And we cannot leave questions unanswered."

"We've been very successful in getting a lot of materials that I don't think anybody has ever seen before," he said of his earlier dealings with the White House. "Within the legal constraints that they seem to have, they've been fully cooperative. But we're not going to be satisfied until we get every document that we need."

Last year, the White House confirmed news reports that President Bush received a written intelligence report in August 2001, the month before the attacks, that Al Qaeda might try to hijack American passenger planes.

nwm

 

[Bowfinger]

Note that John McCain is also not satisfied with the White House's cooperation in this investigation. (Discussed in this thread.)

 

[nowareman]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Note that John McCain is also not satisfied with the White House's cooperation in this investigation. (Discussed in this thread.)

There is bi-partisan support for the commission and bi-partisan anger at the White House for not cooperating and stalling hoping next May will come before the commission gets the information they are entitled to.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

He said that while he had not directly threatened a subpoena in his recent conversations with the White House legal counsel, Alberto R. Gonzales, "it's always on the table, because they know that Congress in their wisdom gave us the power to subpoena, to use it if necessary."
....
Despite the threat of a subpoena and his warning of the possibility of a court battle over the documents, Mr. Kean said he maintained a good relationship with Mr. Gonzales and others at the White House, and that he was still hopeful that the White House would produce all of the classified material demanded by the panel without a subpoena.


"We've been very successful in getting a lot of materials that I don't think anybody has ever seen before," he said of his earlier dealings with the White House. "Within the legal constraints that they seem to have, they've been fully cooperative. But we're not going to be satisfied until we get every document that we need."

CkG

The problem with 'internal' documents is a few fold in my opinion. First, they can almost always be read in more than one way. They need testimony to sort out the intent of the subtle and that could turn out to be a taking of one thing to possibly mean another. Secondly, means and methods must be kept secret and I'd suspect most of anything related to this issue didn't come from the NYT. And Lastly, There is the law. So long as there is no allegation of criminal activity contained in the 'executive privilege' claim it should be maintained for the good of the office and the nation. But, let there be a hint of shenanigans involved and I vote a Federal Judge review the documents and give over what is relevant and not 'top secret'.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
I am curious how the Bush apologists rationalize the Bush administration's lack of cooperation. Why? If Bush and his lieutenants are the fine Americans you believe them to be, what possible reasons do they have for anything less than complete, unconditional cooperation? Even if you believe their actions are legal due to "executive privilege" or whatever, why are they necessary? Why are they hiding behind excuses when full and forthright disclosure is obviuosly in America's best interests?

Crickets? . . .

 

[Mean MrMustard]

I do hear some chirping...

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
I am curious how the Bush apologists rationalize the Bush administration's lack of cooperation. Why? If Bush and his lieutenants are the fine Americans you believe them to be, what possible reasons do they have for anything less than complete, unconditional cooperation? Even if you believe their actions are legal due to "executive privilege" or whatever, why are they necessary? Why are they hiding behind excuses when full and forthright disclosure is obviuosly in America's best interests?

Crickets? . . .

"Silence is Agreement" -anonymous Wise Man

 

[Gaard]

link

Washington - Members of both parties are accusing the White House of stonewalling the federal commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks by blocking its demands for documents despite threats of a subpoena.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Gaard
link

Washington - Members of both parties are accusing the White House of stonewalling the federal commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks by blocking its demands for documents despite threats of a subpoena.

Here is a similar story from the San Francisco Chronicle:

Bush blasted for Sept. 11 secrecy - Senators from both major parties support lawsuit if necessary to aid investigation

Washington -- Prominent senators of both parties, learning that the chairman of the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks has not received full access to pertinent government documents, called on the Bush White House Sunday to be more forthcoming.

"After claiming they wanted to find the truth about September 11th, the Bush administration has resorted to secrecy, stonewalling and foot dragging," said Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn. "They have resisted this inquiry at every turn."

Lieberman, a presidential candidate and co-sponsor of legislation forming the bipartisan panel, pressed the White House to release all records relating to the terrorist attacks, including highly classified intelligence reports.

"If they continue to refuse, I will urge the independent commission to take the administration to court," he said in a statement. "And if the administration tries to run out the clock, (Sen.) John McCain (R-Ariz.) and I will go to the floor of the Senate to extend the life of the commission."

Commission chairman Thomas Kean said in an interview with the New York Times published Sunday that the panel "will use every tool at our command to get hold of every document." Kean is prepared to subpoena documents held by the White House and other federal agencies, commission spokesman Al Felzenberg confirmed.

Kean, a Republican former governor of New Jersey, has acknowledged his commission is seeking sensitive materials. But he suggested presidential privilege does not apply to the work of his panel in the same way it might enable the White House to withhold documents from Congress.

On NBC's "Meet the Press," Sens. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., and John D. Rockefeller, D-W.Va., both urged the administration to comply with the commission's requests.

"On the Intelligence Committee, we're going through some of the same problems," Rockefeller said. "A lot of the documents that we've requested from the Department of Defense, from the White House and the National Security Agency, we do not have yet."

Last month, the 10-member National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States issued its first subpoenas to the Federal Aviation Administration. In all, the commission has received 2 million pages of documents and conducted hundreds of interviews, Felzenberg said.

White House spokesman Brian Besanceney had no comment on the prospect of a subpoena, but said: "The administration has provided unprecedented cooperation, including millions of pages of documents, and we look forward to continuing to work with the commission to accomplish its goals."

 

[DealMonkey]

bump.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

...continuing from the other thread on this subject since it was locked.

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
It's not like the daily briefings would be immediately published in every newspaper or something. They would be internally reviewed by the 9/11 commission: A bi-partisan commission given the green light to investigate by everyone involved, including the White House. The documents wouldn't even be seen by Congress. Moreover, those on the commission have security clearance to view classified documents.

To claim this is a "leftist conspiracy" is just assinine. If the administration doesn't turn over requested documents, I don't blame the commission for using their supeona powers. They and by extension, the American public, deserve nothing less than full cooperation.

I didn't say it was a "leftist conspiracy"

- you guys, the media, and other's are making this sound like another one of your conspiracy accusations. "what is he hiding" blah blah blah. It is SECURITY ISSUES, and also the integrity of the daily security briefings. What part of him saying they were cooperating don't you understand? The subpoena will never go through - they can try all they want but it'll fail. They best work with Bush to get the info they think they want.

nowareman - this isn't an insult to anyone - YOU are already politicizing this - see? Do you people understand what the the security briefing is? Is it not some of the most highly top-secret reports there are? There is NO reason that they need his whole briefing - from the sounds of it Bush is willing to give them the info they seem to want. So take your tragedy insult BS elsewhere - emotional rhetoric doesn't help your cause.

CkG

 

[DealMonkey]

Yeah, Cad, you can tell it to the victims of 9/11 when they ask why the White House isn't fully cooperating.

Correction: "Conspiracy accusation by the left." That's what I meant to say you said.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Yeah, Cad, you can tell it to the victims of 9/11 when they ask why the White House isn't fully cooperating.

Correction: "Conspiracy accusation by the left." That's what I meant to say you said.

Just like I told BOBD....I mean nowareman - The emotional rhetoric doesn't help your argument.

CkG

 

[Corn]

Just like I told BOBD....I mean nowareman

We can only hope that turd's ban is now permanent. Talk about not having a life........simply lends support to my belief that this moron was being paid to post here, or is simply mentally ill.......

 

[Corn]

Within the legal constraints that they seem to have, they've been fully cooperative.

Now that that is out of the way, would someone care to prove that there are no partisan personalities on this bi-partisan commission?

 

[GrGr]

On Aug 6, 2001 Bush received a top secret intelligence memo called "Bin Laden determined to strike in the US".

The Bush administration has also admitted they were "specifically told" that hijacks were being planned.

Now don't you think that such information is relevant to the inquiry?

 

[DealMonkey]

The only "legal constraints" they seem to have are the ones that Bush's attorneys are creating. This administration opposed the forming of this commission in the first place, I don't expect them to fully cooperate. But that's why the commission is given supeona powers and I fully expect they'll have to use them. The whole concept of this being a "national security issue" is preposterous - rather it's just more stonewalling and foot-dragging...