Experts See No Law Barring Rice Testimony

[leftchick]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=703&e=3&u=/ap/20040330/ap_on_re_us/sept_11_commission

<snip>
Rice already has spoken to the commission in private. But she says public testimony is protected by executive privilege. That principle says presidential advisers cannot be legally forced to disclose their confidential communications if that would adversely affect the operations of the executive branch.

It is rare for White House advisers to testify publicly before Congress or congressionally appointed panels like the Sept. 11 commission. But exceptions exist, and legal scholars say they poke holes in Rice's argument.

She also has spoken openly to the media about the attacks and the advice she offered President Bush (news - web sites) about terrorism.

"The whole idea of executive privilege is that the president's advisers should be able to give advice in confidence," said Herman Schwartz, a constitutional law professor at American University. "That means the advice should be kept confidential. But she's talked to everybody under the sun.


...Take That Condi-Liar...

[Career Prole]

1. What the hell are they hiding?

The most unsettling aspect of this administration's term in office has been the enormous amount of information they want kept secret.
They claim allowing Rice to testify will set a bad precedent. I believe the opposite is true. Insisting on keeping secrets, and being permitted to keep secrets when 3,000 have been murdered on our soil then falsely waging a war which murdered thousands more sets a far more dangerous precedent.