« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Reyes on Sudden White House Generosity: "I Don't Know Why"
Here's House intelligence committee Chair Silvestre Reyes' entire statement on the White House's sudden decision to allow them access to documents concerning the warrantless surveillance program:
“I have pushed for eight months to review this material... I don't know why the White House refused to give us access. Now we will be able to view documents used to set up the President's warrantless wiretapping program.”
With the battle over retroactive immunity in the Senate looking pretty good for the administration, they're no doubt looking to the House as the next battleground. And they apparently decided that it would help if they shared a little. They certainly haven't suddenly been struck with a love of inter-branch comity.
As for House Judiciary Committee Chair John Conyers (D-MI), he decided that this was an offer he couldn't refuse -- ten Dems on his committee and nine Republicans will get to see the docs, an apparently arbitrarily limitation -- but he remains "disappointed," he said, that the administration is still withholding some documents from this and other programs.
Comments (5)
electricphoto wrote on January 24, 2008 6:47 PM:Every document they give the house will be orchestrated to build a case of why its just so freakin reasonable that they should grant immunity.
Their spying operation knows what every member's concerns are and these docs will be there just for that purpose.
The missing docs? All the ones that are real...that contain evidence of wrongdoing.... missing, Think they have had enough time to rig this documentation?
Ever wonder how each members concerns just seem to go away after these docs come out? Just read their emails and tap their phones and you know exactly what each member wants to see... it's that easy.
DON'T FORGET THAT THIS BILL HIDES IDEEP INSIDE BLANKET IMMUNITY FOR BUSH FROM THESE CRIMES!!!!
The details:
Anonymous wrote on January 24, 2008 7:57 PM:Bush wants to keep Senators clueless because telecom immunity also gives Bush immunity. Telecom immunity includes by definition the approval of two condition precedents: Bush had constitutional authority for the warrantless surveillance and the surveillance was determined to be lawful. Under the doctrine of Congressional ratification, the effect of this approval is to retroactively "legalize" Bush's authority and program. This means that Bush may have immunity from prosecution. Moreover, for years, Bush could not cite any statutory authority for his theory of unitary presidential prerogatives. Bush will now have precedent.
The American government offers We the People absurd options. The public has seen this before. There is no reason to have confidence
A. Unreliable
He's lied in private before on the FISA issues. We have not been provided any guarantees -- other than his worthless oath, which the Congress refuses to enforce with investigations into alleged impeachable offenses. There are no foreseeable consequences from this Congress if the President misrepresents what has been happening, or what he plans to do.
- Why should we believe the President's disclosures -- in secret -- will be accurate, complete, or truthful?
B. Secrecy
There have been secret agreements not to conduct legal reviews of information from this President.
- How do we know that the agreement to disclose is not linked with Congressional promises not to consult the issues with legal counsel?
- How much time will Congress get to review whether the disclosures are or are not accurate; much less consider the merits of the plans?
C. Oversight
FISA was the means by which the President's conduct would be regulated. The President wants immunity. Yet, the Congress has shown little interest in fact finding or enforcement; only in thwarting enforcement of the existing law through immunity. This is an alleged unconstitutional assertion of judicial power by the Congress.
We cannot credibly believe that there will be "new oversight for this new agreement" when Congress shows it is not just unwilling, but incapable of conducting oversight -- with enforced contempt citations -- over the existing legal requirements. Congress has provided no balance to the President's dubious assertions: A new plan requires a greater assurance to the public that Congress will not merely promise to act; but that if Congress fails to act there will be swift and timely consequences. Congress, because of the unfavorable weather is not inclined to do more, when it is by habit and precedent inclined to do and favors nothing.
- What new oversight, above and beyond FISA, is the Congress willing to enforce?
D. Freedom
Congress is not inclined to assert power, but to remove options before securing meaningful assurances from the President. Congress doesn't respect it's own power, not to mention the Constitution. It is absurd to believe the President will cooperate with Congress when Congress refuses to enforce _failures of the President_ to cooperate with the _Supreme Law_.
Congress is less than a separate branch of government than it is a separate forum to parade fantasy as if fact; art as science; criminals as saints; illegalities as gospel.
The Gospel of John reminds us that law of man must be enforced [James 2:12 "Talk and act as people who are going to be judged by laws that bring freedom"]: God intends for written law to be respected; not for the will of man to supplant both written laws of man, and the divine will, as this Congress permits, and this President has done. This is the intent of keeping the law of God separate, not muddled as this President would to create confusion, while professing his "Christian" heritage.
We are not free when the laws of man, as God instructs, are ignored. We are servants to tyrants, in contravention to the Constitution, the Divine Will, and the yearnings of all people. It is absurd to talk about bringing freedom to the Iraqis, while we compel American citizens to keep their minds chained to tyranny.
It might be better to call the Congress what it is: An ancient relic, a museum, but not a body interested in governance, the law, or self-preservation. But most of all, not freedom.
- If the President lies, how will Congress enforce that: Through impeachment that is off the table; or contempt citations which it does not enforce?
Anonymous wrote on January 24, 2008 8:01 PM:Anonymous wrote on January 24, 2008 7:57 PM
CORRECTION
"The Gospel of John reminds us. . ."
SHOULD READ
"The Gospel of _James_ reminds us. . ."
IceJustIce wrote on January 24, 2008 8:49 PM:Don't cave, Conyers!!! Unless Dodd's filibuster survives in the Senate, you're our only hope.
parrot wrote on January 26, 2008 4:38 AM:"Disappointed"?!!? F-ing impeach someone and make them turn over the documents. The Constitution is pretty clear on that little matter...