Republicans say Rice's testimony "not to be seen as precedent ."

[JohnLocke]

I think I was going to have a heart attack after reading this:

"We do not believe Dr. Rice's testimony, before an independent commission, should be seen as setting any precedent, and it should not be cited as setting precedent for future requests for a National Security Advisor or any other White House official to testify before a legislative body," Hastert concluded.

Who do they think they are, the king or something? Divine Right? Mandate of Heaven? You'd think that they were Napoleon! Congress has the right of legislative oversight, especially in matters this important. This is an affront to all citizens!

:grr: -- :wtf: -- :grr: -- :wtf: -- :grr: -- :wtf: -- :grr:

[adriennel]

1. let's remember this

the next time the Supreme Court tries to install a president of the United States. It was clearly stated at the time "this was not to set a precedent".

[worldgonekrazy]

2. They're just posturing

They are trying to keep other administration officials from having to come before the panel because they know it would be VERY damaging for them to do so.

However, I don't think this will fly with the press or the public. The fact that they have now decided to have Condi testify is basically acquescing to the idea that this commission is too important for "technicalities" to interfere with. They know that will be the perception and they are trying to counter it early, but it won't work.

[Sandpiper]

3. Republicans seem to be confusing Executive Privilege

with The Divine Right of Kings.

[tjwash]

4. I don't know why..

...but I have a feeling Rice is really going to lose it and spill enough to really screw things up for *.

Hopeful thinking perhaps?

[TreasonousBastard]

5. Ahem...

Executive Privilege has been invoked since the beginning of the Republic, and is fundamental to the separation of powers.

That we occasionally don't like it being used by the likes of Nixon and Bush doesn't mean it should be destroyed. What if Kerry or another Democrat needs it in the future?

Every time something like this comes up, it should be argued anew, and a compromise reached.

Think about it-- would you really have wanted to see Clinton in handcuffs dragged down to a Congressional hearing over a blowjob? Truman in irons over firing Macarthur?

Congress has the powers of the purse and impeachment over the Executive, and that's pretty much all it should have.

[The Spirit of JFK]

7. Many Constitutional scholars would disagree

Most people throw the separation of powers idea out as fact simply because how
the text in the Constitution is organized: Article One deals with the
legislative powers, Article Two with the executive and Article Three with the
judiciary. And many people will therefore see any crossover of these powers as
unconstitutional. Of course, if you wanted to use the layout and text as a
guide, the legislative branch come first and is much much longer than the other
branches. Some would then take this to mean that the framers intended the legislative branch to be the most important with the checks and balances mostly coming from the other branches.

There is clearly some assumption that the powers will be separated, but it seems
to be within a context of a system of checks and balances. For instance, a
chamber of the legislature is involved in the appointments process, which is
nominally an executive power. And the president has a veto over bills passed by
the legislative branch. So many consitutional scholars see the system more as
checks and balances than as separation of powers.

At the Philadelphia Convention, George Mason emphasized that members of Congress “are not only Legislators but they possess inquisitorial powers. They must meet frequently to inspect the Conduct of the public offices.”(The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, at 206 (Max Farrand, ed. 1937).

Congress also depends on information from the executive branch to perform its
constitutional duties which include issues involving the military and national
security issues, such as delcaring war. And much of the information that
Congress seeks is located within executive agencies, many of which that are
created, authorized, and funded by Congress. Does this mean Congress has a right
to ANY information relating to their OWN official duties?

Every President has used it in their own way, so each side can point to certain precendents and say "See! See!". While I agree that it a case by case review is not necessarily a bad thing, it can be overly politicized. If one party controls all the branches, then there is very good chance for politics to supercede procedure and law, which is very dangerous.

My main concern is that the current administration has done a lot to undermine the constitutional powers of Congress...and this could be one of them...and the shifting of power to one branch would alarm the framers, and SHOULD alarm us.

[TreasonousBastard]

9. I agree that...

the separation isn't properly spelled out in the Constitution, but the intent was for checks and balances.

Ever since Roosevelt, though, we've seen the Imperial Presidency trying to take over Congress' functions, for better or worse, and often Congress seems a bit deficient in its oversight functions.

It's much easier for a President to get things done than 535 people on the Hill, and perhaps one great misjudgment of the framers was that the President is a check on the "tyranny of Congress," while perhaps it should be more the other way around.

Be that as it may, though, I can't see that automatically forcing everyone to open their private internal papers would be a good thing. There are times when things need to be in the public record, but many of those times there should be a fight over it before it happens.

Nothing about this method of government was ever claimed to be perfect, but it muddles along as better than many others.

[The Spirit of JFK]

14. Yes, checks and balances

But checks and balances is much different from true separation, especially as Bush and Company would have it.

Yes, it's much easier for the President to get things done, but the framers were very very careful about this. They were more than happy to sacrifice efficiency and expediency with what THEY saw as more honest, truer, and more representational decision making process. They were looking to avoid the British system at the time, which worked the other way around.

I don't think that sometimes being a bit deficient in it's oversight functions has much to do with it's constitutional powers, I think the framers were also careful with this as well. Discourse and procedure....chacks and balances. That's part of why they gave the president the power of veto.

"Private internal papers" is a very loose term. I am certainly not advocating storming the white house and opening every file cabinet. But if they are papers regarding policy and government actions, much of which falls under the jurisdiction of Congress, don't they have more of a claim to see those papers, especially regarding something that already happened?

[TreasonousBastard]

19. Well...

I didn't say everything should stay secret, just that there should be open discussion before opening the files.

Nothing should be too easy for anyone in an open government.

[dpibel]

15. If you would be so kind

Would you enlighten me on how testimony before a commission empaneled by the executive branch constitutes a separation of powers problem?

Thanks so much.

Yours truly,

Baffled in the West

[TreasonousBastard]

20. It's an independant commission...

forced on the executive.

Again, they should get pretty much everything they want, but not without a fight.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

6. it is the 2nd condition of Rice's public ytestimony that the 911 commissio

n should refuse to go along with "That NO OTHER White House Officials be called to testify." WTF????...if the 911 commission agrees to this condition we can all FORGET about getting to the truth!...not that i really believed we would <sigh>

[Blasphemer]

8. Depends on how it plays out....

If Condi screws up, somehow reveals something damning, or is so evasive that the public remains frustrated, the fact that no other officials are allowed to testify will continue to leave the impression that they are hiding something. Everything they do gives the impression of a coverup.

[Qutzupalotl]

11. Saw that too. It's outrageous.

So Rice will testify, then Cheney and Bush get one hour TOGETHER before the commission, and that's it. What if they have follow-up questions? Are they SOL?

Or would this blow up in Bush's face? It would be hard for the WH to face public questions in the media (who could keep asking them at press conferences), then say, "But--you agreed in writing not to ask us to testify again!" Think that will hold? What force of law prevents the commission from saying, "Something's come up and we want you to testify again"?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

12. bush* & cheney don't even go before the entire 911 Commission only

1 hour before the 2 heads of the 911 Commission Kean & ?
WTF and Kean is a bush butt buddie

911 CommissionHead Thomas Kean
Had Business Ties With Osama's Brother-In-Law
Michel Chossudovsky
GlobalResearch.ca
12-29-2

Now you would think that being a business partner of the brother in law and alleged financier of "Enemy No. 1" would be considered a bona fide "conflict of interest", particularly when your mandate --as part of the 9/11 Commission's work-- is to investigate "Enemy No. 1"...

Unknown to most, UNOCAL's partner in the Cent-Gas trans-Afghan pipeline consortium, the Saudi Company Delta Oil is owned by the bin Mahfouz and Al-Amoudi clans which allegedly have ties to bin Laden's Al Qaeda.

According to a 1998 Senate testimony of former CIA director James Woolsey, powerful financier Khalid bin Mahfouz' younger sister is married to Osama bin Laden,. (US Senate, Senate Judiciary Committee, Federal News Service, 3 Sept. 1998, See also Wayne Madsen, Questionable Ties, In These Times,12 Nov. 2001 )

Bin Mahfouz is suspected to have funnelled millions of dollars to the Al Qaeda network.(See Tom Flocco, Scoop.co.nz 28 Aug. 2002)


EDITED BY ADMIN: COPYRIGHT

more...
http://www.rense.com/general33/chair.htm

[Qutzupalotl]

13. They've changed that and agreed to one joint session with all 10.

WASHINGTON March 30 — Bowing to pressure, the White House will allow National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice to testify in public under oath before the commission investigating the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney also agreed to speak with the full panel privately.

To reach the compromise, the administration said Tuesdsay it had won agreement from the commission that it would seek no further public testimony from White House officials and that Rice's appearance would not be viewed as a precedent.

Click to learn more...

The commission welcomed the decision in a statement which said, "We will work with the White House to schedule both sessions promptly."

Bush and Cheney have agreed to a single joint private session with all 10 commissioners, with one commission staff member present to take notes of the session, White House counsel Alberto Gonzales said in a letter to the panel. Previously, the administration was only offering private interviews of Bush and Cheney with just the commission chairman and vice chairman.
http://www.abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20040330_893.html

[Moderator]

17. Elsewhere's Daughter

Per DU copyright
rules please post
only four paragraphs
from the news source.


Thank you.


DU Moderator

[rustydog]

10. They are practically quoting white house lawyer verbatim!

Talk about being on message. These Nazis don't miss a lock-step do they.
How much do you want to bet Rush, Heil Hannity, Savage Weiner and Company say " Neo-Condi's testimony not a precedent".

Gawd, how do they sleep with all that blood on their hands?

[zls44]

16. What will she say

Does anyone here even think that she'll reveal any damaging information? To what degree will the panel even be able to extract information from her?

And to what degree is the WH using backroom politiking to try and calm down the panelists so they might not ask the really tough questions?

[JohnLocke]

18. Kick for my rant (nt).