By JESSE J. HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer
August 21, 2007
WASHINGTON - A top Senate Democrat on Monday threatened to
hold members of the Bush administration in contempt for not
producing subpoenaed information about the legal justification
for President Bush's secretive eavesdropping program.
"When the Senate comes back in the session, I'll bring
it up before the committee," said Sen. Patrick Leahy,
D-Vt. and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. "I
prefer cooperation to contempt. Right now, there's no question
that they are in contempt of the valid order of the Congress."
Leahy's committee on June 27 subpoenaed the Justice Department,
National Security Council and the offices of the president
and vice president for documents relating to the National Security
Agency's legal justification for the wiretapping program.
White House lawyer Fred Fielding, in a Monday letter to Leahy,
said that the administration needed more time.
"A core set of highly sensitive national security and
related documents we have so far identified are potentially
subject to claims of executive privilege and that a more complete
collection and review of all materials responsive to the subpoenas
will require additional time," Fielding said.
Leahy said they had waited long enough.
"It has been almost two months since service of the subpoenas,
three weeks since the time they asked for additional time.
And still, we have nothing at all," Leahy said.
Leahy also questioned whether the Senate would again reauthorize
laws that expand the government's authority to spy on foreigners
without the subpoenaed information.
Congress, before it left for its August recess, approved an
update to the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, allowing
the government to eavesdrop on terror suspects overseas without
first getting a court warrant.
The overhaul was the result of a recent Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court ruling that banned eavesdropping on foreigners
when their messages were routed though communications carriers
based in the United States.
The provisions expire after six months, but the White House
wants them made permanent.
"For Congress to legislate effectively in this area,
it has to have full information about the executive branch's
interpretations of FISA," Leahy said. "We cannot,
and certainly, we should not legislate in the dark, where the
administration hides behind a fictitious veil of secrecy."
The White House said it was not looking for a conflict with
Congress over FISA.
"Extending and modernizing FISA is critical to our national
security, and our intelligence professionals consider it imperative
that we do not weaken the tools they feel are necessary to
protect America's national security interests," White
House spokesman Tony Fratto said.
Leahy also indicated that the committee would continue to
seek recently resigned White House adviser Karl Rove's appearance
on the U.S. attorney firings.
Fielding has said President Bush would invoke executive privilege
to keep Rove from answering questions or submitting documents
to Senate Judiciary Committee. The committee has been investigating
whether the White House ordered the prosecutor firings in ways
that might help Republicans in elections.
"I don't think he had a valid claim of executive privilege,
because all the testimony has been it wasn't discussed with
the president. If it wasn't discussed with the president, there's
no executive privilege," Leahy said. "And they've
just lost the other claim they could make that he's too important
to the operation of the White House to be able to take time
to testify. That's not going to be the case anymore."
___
On the Net:
Senate Judiciary Committee: http://judiciary.senate.gov
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed
without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest
in receiving the included information for research and
educational purposes. BadConcress.com has no affiliation
whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is BadCongress.com
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.
|
