Privacy or BS

Jackie Mason | April 27, 2004
[hidden by request]

Kris Weberg | April 28, 2004
Well, I bet everyone here can guess my stand on this matter... :)

Steve Dunn | April 29, 2004
Executive privilege is a funny thing. People tend to be in favor of it when they like the president, and against it when they don't.

Presidents have a certain responsibility to stand up for executive privilege when they think it's appropriate because the boundaries of the privilege are passed down, as precedent, to their successors. Some folks who now seek disclosure of details regarding Cheney's energy task force might change their tune if, say, Kerry gets elected and his political opponents demand he turn over all sorts of records.

Bill Clinton asserted the executive privilege in order to block Ken Starr's investigation of Whitewater (and later, Lewinsky). He lost 9-0 in the Supreme Court... twice. If the current administration's assertion of executive privilege is meritless, it will presumably meet the same result.

It's a bit like the controversy regarding Condoleeza Rice's testifying before the 9/11 commission. The administration said it had no problem with the substance of what she would say - they just didn't want to establish the precedent that a sitiing National Security Advisor could be called to testify before a congressional committee. Separation of powers, and all that.

Jackie Mason | April 29, 2004
[hidden by request]

Anna Gregoline | April 29, 2004
Yeah, that doesn't make sense. Testifying should be under oath. Unless it's somehow implied that the president and their crew always tell the truth, which of course, is utter bullshit.

Steve Dunn | April 29, 2004
Personally, I think some of this stuff is silly, too. But I understand why they don't want to cave in too much. It's a bit like the NRA vehemently opposes ALL gun control legislation, even where it might not matter so much - just to prevent giving ANY ground.

Testifying under oath is a judicial-type thing to do. The executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government are supposed to have certain checks and balances against each other. Regarding the 9/11 Commission testimony of Rice, Cheney and Bush, they're trying not to establish a precendent that the Congress can just compel the president, vice-president, and national security advisor to come down to Capitol Hill and testify under oath whenever it wants.

Whenever you start drawing lines in the middle, it's easy to point out that the lines don't make sense. (Why is the drinking age 21 instead of 20 or 22?) Bush's position might have been "cleaner" if they'd all simply refused to testify before the 9/11 Commission at all.

Instead, they chose a middle path, and of course they're getting knocked for it. That's politics, I guess.

Kris Weberg | April 29, 2004
Stev -- you do know that two prior NSAs have testified before Congress under oath, right? Technicially, they waived their special status rather than being compelled to give it up, but Rice could easily have invoked that precedent, given up no ground, and testified all the same.

Steve Dunn | May 1, 2004
I didn't know that. Rice did testify - so if the NSA status the same as it's always been?

Kris Weberg | May 2, 2004
Basically, she eventually did what she could have done all along without affecting a thing.

Steve Dunn | May 3, 2004
Kris - that's different from what I've heard. As I understood it, the previous NSAs had already left the post before testifying. Rice's situation was (supposedly) unique because she is the sitting NSA. Am I off base here?