To BBpdx:
Why just arrest them? Shouldn't we torture them as well? It seems to be all the rage with the right wing these days.

Democrats have all of the confidence of a high school freshman walking into a hall full of Juniors and Seniors on the first day of school. They will do something about the Bush administration only after Bush gives them permission.

Of course we can look forward to another stern letter from either Waxman or Leahy. It isn't that Democrats are weak on defense, they are just weak period.

"There really is a floodgate problem," he said. "Once you create hard-and-fast rules, it does change how the parties behave going forward."

Well, what we have now is one side unilaterally making up its own set of rules, and that changes how the parties behave going forward, too.

The problem with arresting them is that it demonstrates how little power Congress really has to enforce those subpoenas. But maybe making a couple of Bush's favorites cool their heels in jail for several months might make a some others think twice before refusing to comply with Congressional subpoenas in the future. It was, apparently, enough to make Judy Miller grasp at straws to find a reason to comply with Patrick Fitzgerald's demand for testimony.

Wikipedia's description of Inherent contempt

Under this process, the procedure for holding a person in contempt involves only the chamber concerned. Following a contempt citation, the person cited is arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms for the House or Senate, brought to the floor of the chamber, held to answer charges by the presiding officer, and then subjected to punishment as the chamber may dictate (usually imprisonment for punishment reasons, imprisonment for coercive effect, or release from the contempt citation.)

Concerned with the time-consuming nature of a contempt proceeding and the inability to extend punishment further than the session of the Congress concerned (under Supreme Court rulings), Congress created a statutory process in 1857. While Congress retains its "inherent contempt" authority and may exercise it at any time, this inherent contempt process was last used by the Senate in 1934, in a Senate investigation of airlines and the U.S. Postmaster. After a one-week trial on the Senate floor (presided over by the Vice-President of the United States, acting as Senate President), William P. MacCracken, a lawyer and former Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Aeronautics who had allowed clients to rip up subpoenaed documents, was found guilty and sentenced to 10 days imprisonment.[5]

MacCracken filed a petition of Habeas Corpus in federal courts to overturn his arrest, but after litigation, the US Supreme Court ruled that Congress had acted constitutionally, and denied the petition in the case Jurney v. MacCracken.[6][7]

Presidential pardons appear not to apply to a civil contempt procedure like the above, since it is not an "offense against the United States" or against "the dignity of public authority."[8]

Works for me.

ITMFA.

RIP George Carlin,one of the last true activists to give up.I`m with you George.Peace.
I told them I would serve the subpoena.Did I hear from anyone?Nooooooo.Well,I that`s it. I give up

Does the Sergeant-at-Arms arrive alone?

What if they just refused to go with him/her?

Who enforces the arrest?

Extraordinary rendition made ordinary.

I-T-M-F-A.

This is awesome. Awesome. I would love to see these criminals arrested. Start with them and then start working their way through the White House.

It because they are afraid of YOU Yes, you, the public. They get the mistaken idea on the strength of opinion because of the loud R-wing nut jobs given a voice on Fox news. Fox news a landslide of viewership (it seemed -- I'm not sure there wasn't some funny business in the numbers) and the other news outlets quaked. They went pro-conservative in response. They gave microphones to idiots. Clear Channel bought up radio stations and all people could hear was that one voice. By using MONEY, they took advantage of erroded regulations and took over and created a propaganda machine. It is both all we hear and all Congress hears. They hardly hear the majority anymore. One thing you can do is to stop watching any Murdoch channels, a simply way is this: If it says Fox, don't watch!

Since most Congressmen refuse to stand up to Bush and call for impeachment, suppose we have an election
where we Boycott All Of Congress?

A PROPOSAL…
Suppose some person or group organize a

National BOYCOTT OF ALL CONGRESSMEN IN THE ELECTION?

Urge Voters to vote for the Presidential Candidate of their choice (preferably Obama),

BUT ASK VOTERS TO NOT VOTE FOR
ANY Democratic or Republican CONGRESSMAN
FOR ANY FEDERAL OFFICE
(either House or Senate)

You’ll get the President You Want

But the BOYCOTT of Congressmen might Upset
the Vote Totals enough
To Send A Message To ALL Congressmen to
TAKE THEIR OATH OF OFFICE SERIOUSLY
and to
To Protect Our Constitution,
AND TO IMPEACH When It Is Obvious To ALL that Crimes have been committed By The Executive Branch.

They have ignored everything we have said or done to get them to obey the Constitution , obey their oath of office, and at least hold impeachment hearings. WHY NOT TRY THIS?

A National Vote Boycott of All Congressmen
from both parties in November.

They might get the message in time to save themselves before the 2010 election.

As an example our Congressman Udall in Colorado wants to rise to the Senate but refuses to discuss with voters the Cheney/Bush Crimes and impeachment and dismisses his refusal as merely a "difference of opinion".

The Constitution gives him an order to impeach for well known crimes, his Oath gave him an order to defend the Constitution, no room for "opinion" here, just his duty. I could vote for him but His arrogant silence is deafening.

John H Kennedy, Denver,CO 43 yr Democratic voter, Obama delegate to the Denver County Convention.

..

The idea is to make the admin think the ruling will go against them so that they will settle with congress first.

The Dems don't want to set a precedent either, since next time the GOP is back in power the contempt procedure can (will?) be turned against them.

That hinted at one option the judge has that could pre-empt his own ruling: He could order both sides to negotiate further and, if nothing came of it, Bates could just put the case on a shelf until the end of the year. When the new Congress begins its term in 2009, the subpoenas essentially vanish and the case would be moot.

The problem with Bush appointed judges - the pratice law but politics.

Judge Bates doesn't serve the law, he serves Bush. But I fail to see how the case would be moot - certainly the case could continue unless a President Obama, in the spirit of Pelosi - takes these cases off the table - which, no doubt Obama will do, since he caved on the FISA bill. Obama will be a do nothing President. He really isn't about change at all. I bet Obama doesn't even get us out of the Iraq war.

The case becomes moot at the end of the year because one of the litigants, the 110th Congress, ceases to exist.

Come January, the 111th Congress starts.

This lawsuit was filed by the 110th Congress, an entity that will no longer exist by the end of the year.

Obama, as President, will not have any say either way about whether this lawsuit could continue.

-- ARG

If this was a Republican congress versus members of a Democratic executive refusing to show up in response to a subpoena, I can GUARANTEE you the Republicans would already have them cooling their heels in a local jail. They have no qualms about using their power.

Why the Democrats refuse to perform their Constitutional DUTY, is beyond me.