Cheney Lawyer Claims Congress Has No Authority Over Vice President

[GreedySmurf]

Cheney Lawyer Claims Congress Has No Authority Over Vice President
By Elana Schor
The Guardian UK

Tuesday 29 April 2008

The lawyer for US vice-president Dick Cheney claimed today that the Congress lacks any authority to examine his behaviour on the job.

The exception claimed by Cheney's counsel came in response to requests from congressional Democrats that David Addington, the vice-president's chief of staff, testify about his involvement in the approval of interrogation tactics used at Guantanamo Bay.

Ruling out voluntary cooperation by Addington, Cheney lawyer Kathryn Wheelbarger said Cheney's conduct is "not within the [congressional] committee's power of inquiry".

"Congress lacks the constitutional power to regulate by law what a vice-president communicates in the performance of the vice president's official duties, or what a vice president recommends that a president communicate," Wheelbarger wrote to senior aides on Capitol Hill.

The exception claimed by Cheney's office recalls his attempt last year to evade rules for classified documents by deeming the vice-president's office a hybrid branch of government - both executive and legislative.

The Democratic congressman who is investigating the legal framework for the violent interrogation of terrorist suspects, John Conyers, has asked Addington and several other top Bush administration lawyers to testify. Thus far all have claimed their deliberations are privileged.

However, Philippe Sands QC, law professor at University College, London, has agreed to appear in Washington and discuss the revelations in Torture Team, his new book on the consequences of the brutal tactics used at Guantanamo.

Excerpts from Torture Team were previewed exclusively by the Guardian earlier this month.

Two witnesses sought by Conyers, former US attorney general John Ashcroft and former US justice department lawyer John Yoo, claimed that their involvement in civil lawsuits related to harsh interrogations allows them to avoid appearing before Congress.

In letters to attorneys representing Ashcroft and Yoo, Conyers shot down their arguments and indicated he would pursue subpoenas if their clients did not testify at his May 6 hearing.

"I am aware of no basis for the remarkable claim that pending civil litigation somehow immunises an individual from testifying before Congress," Conyers wrote.

Conyers, who chairs the House of Representatives judiciary committee, also questioned the reasoning of Cheney's lawyer in a letter to Addington.

"It is hard to know what aspect of the invitation [to you] has given rise to concern that the committee might seek to regulate the vice president's recommendations to the president," Conyers wrote.

"Especially since far more obvious potential subjects of legislation are plentiful," he added, mentioning several: US laws on the use of torture on terrorist suspects, the 15-year-old War Crimes Act, and the rules that allowed the Bush White House to receive legal advice from a specialized office within the justice department.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/29/dickcheney.usa

 

[QueEx]

<font size="4">
This is why Hillary Clinton, and her uncontrollable husband, should
not be selected by Barack Obama to become the Vice President<u>s</u>.</font size>

QueEx

 

[QueEx]

While Cheney has suddenly become so outspoken lately,

remember this thread.

QueEx

 

[thoughtone]

While Cheney has suddenly become so outspoken lately,

remember this thread.

QueEx

Where is Lamar, Gunner, actinass, greed? I ask them all of time who did they vote for. I'm still looking for replies.

 

[QueEx]

Where is Lamar, Gunner, actinass, greed? I ask them all of time who did they vote for. I'm still looking for replies.

Right here ? ? ?

. . . Cheney don't talk much, bad things just seem to happen with his fingerprints all over the situation. So, I believe Dick

 

[BigUnc]

Originally Posted by Lamarr

. . . Cheney don't talk much, bad things just seem to happen with his fingerprints all over the situation. So, I believe Dick

----------------------------------------------------------------------

He said this

This is just precious

 

[QueEx]

<font size="3">. . . Cheney don't talk much, bad things just seem to happen
with his fingerprints all over the situation. So, I believe Dick</font size>

​

<font size="5"><Center>Cheney Is Linked to Concealment
of C.I.A. Project from Congress</font size></center>

A report that former Vice President
Dick Cheney was behind the deci-
sion to conceal a C.I.A. program
from Congress deepened the mystery
surrounding it.


The New York Times
By SCOTT SHANE
Published: July 11, 2009

The Central Intelligence Agency withheld information about a secret counterterrorism program from Congress for eight years on direct orders from former Vice President Dick Cheney, the agency’s director, Leon E. Panetta, has told the Senate and House intelligence committees, two people with direct knowledge of the matter said Saturday.

The report that Mr. <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">Cheney was behind the decision to conceal the still-unidentified program from Congress</span> deepened the mystery surrounding it, suggesting that the Bush administration had put a high priority on the program and its secrecy.

<SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">Mr. Panetta, who ended the program when he first learned of its existence from subordinates on June 23</span>, briefed the two intelligence committees about it in separate closed sessions the next day.

Efforts to reach Mr. Cheney through relatives and associates were unsuccessful.

The question of how completely the C.I.A. informed Congress about sensitive programs has been hotly disputed by Democrats and Republicans since May, when Speaker Nancy Pelosi accused the agency of failing to reveal in 2002 that it was waterboarding a terrorism suspect, a claim Mr. Panetta rejected.


<font size="4">Statute Leaves Room for Judgment</font size>

The law requires the president to make sure the intelligence committees “are kept fully and currently informed of the intelligence activities of the United States, including any significant anticipated intelligence activity.” But the language of the statute, the amended National Security Act of 1947, leaves some leeway for judgment, saying such briefings should be done “to the extent consistent with due regard for the protection from unauthorized disclosure of classified information relating to sensitive intelligence sources and methods or other exceptionally sensitive matters.”

In addition, for covert action programs, a particularly secret category in which the role of the United States is hidden, the law says that briefings can be limited to the so-called Gang of Eight, consisting of the Republican and Democratic leaders of both houses of Congress and of their intelligence committees.

The disclosure about Mr. Cheney’s role in the unidentified C.I.A. program comes a day after an inspector general’s report underscored the central role of the former vice president’s office in restricting to a small circle of officials knowledge of the National Security Agency’s program of eavesdropping without warrants, a degree of secrecy that the report concluded had hurt the effectiveness of the counterterrorism surveillance effort.

An intelligence agency spokesman, Paul Gimigliano, declined on Saturday to comment on the report of Mr. Cheney’s role.

“It’s not agency practice to discuss what may or may not have been said in a classified briefing,” Mr. Gimigliano said. “When a C.I.A. unit brought this matter to Director Panetta’s attention, it was with the recommendation that it be shared appropriately with Congress. That was also his view, and he took swift, decisive action to put it into effect.”

Members of Congress have differed on the significance of the program, whose details remained secret and which even some Democrats have said was properly classified. Most of those interviewed, however, have said that it was an important activity that should have been disclosed to the intelligence committees.

Intelligence and Congressional officials have said the unidentified program did not involve the C.I.A. interrogation program and did not involve domestic intelligence activities. They have said the program was started by the counterterrorism center at the C.I.A. shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, but never became fully operational, involving planning and some training that took place off and on from 2001 until this year.

In the tense months after Sept. 11, when Bush administration officials believed new Qaeda attacks could occur at any moment, intelligence officials brainstormed about radical countermeasures. It was in that atmosphere that the unidentified program was devised and deliberately concealed from Congress, officials said.


<center> . . . </center>



A report released on Friday by the inspectors general of five agencies about the National Security Agency’s domestic surveillance program makes clear that Mr. Cheney’s legal adviser, David S. Addington, had to approve personally every government official who was told about the program. The report said “the exceptionally compartmented nature of the program” frustrated F.B.I. agents who were assigned to follow up on tips it had turned up.



<center> . . . </center>



“There’s been a history of difficulty in getting the C.I.A. to tell us what they should,” said Representative Adam Smith, a Democrat of Washington. “We will absolutely be held accountable for anything the agency does.”

Mr. Hoekstra, the intelligence committee’s ranking Republican, said he would not judge the agency harshly in the case of the unidentified program, because it was not fully operational. But he said that in general, the agency had not been as forthcoming as the law required.

“We have to pull the information out of them to get what we need,” Mr. Hoekstra said.

FULL STORY: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/us/politics/12intel.html?_r=1&hp

 

[thoughtone]

 

[Lamarr]

Que, put things in their proper context, you lifted that from another thread.

Be that as it may, it appears my instincts were correct. Cats are shady!

 

[QueEx]

Que, put things in their proper context, you lifted that from another thread.

Be that as it may, it appears my instincts were correct. Cats are shady!

I did put your words in proper context. Now, you want to change them.



QueEx

 

[Lamarr]

I did put your words in proper context. Now, you want to change them.



QueEx

I said it in response to a question Thought had: Who do I think is telling the truth? Dubya, Pelosi or Dick. I said Dick cause the other 2 aint runnin nothin but their mouths.

If we wanna go further in post 14, Thought agreed with me!
http://www.bgol.us/board/showthread.php?t=382966

Agreed. Pelosi and Reid have dirt on them, for at least not being more forceful in opposing the Bush and Cheney rampage. I agree on one thing, moderates don't get much done in Washington. Now it’s time for them to become accountable.

Dawg, I'm goin runnin before it gets hot out here but I'll come back with another article that'll fire the boards up fa sho. Y'all know what I meant

 

[QueEx]

<font size="3">
Your meaning was clear then and now. As you said above:

"Who do I think is telling the truth?
Dubya, Pelosi or Dick. I said Dick"​

How much clearer can that be?

QueEx

</font size>

 

[thoughtone]

I said it in response to a question Thought had: Who do I think is telling the truth? Dubya, Pelosi or Dick. I said Dick cause the other 2 aint runnin nothin but their mouths.

If we wanna go further in post 14, Thought agreed with me!
http://www.bgol.us/board/showthread.php?t=382966



Dawg, I'm goin runnin before it gets hot out here but I'll come back with another article that'll fire the boards up fa sho. Y'all know what I meant

No, don't get me involved in your Sean Hannity blogosphere rejected thought. Defend your political stance own your own.

 

[Lamarr]

No, don't get me involved in your Sean Hannity blogosphere rejected thought. Defend your political stance own your own.

Na playa, when I posted the response to who did I believe: Dubya, Peolsi or Dick? You agreed with me! These are your words from post 14

Agreed. Pelosi and Reid have dirt on them, for at least not being more forceful in opposing the Bush and Cheney rampage. I agree on one thing, moderates don't get much done in Washington. Now it’s time for them to become accountable.

I aint trippin, QueEx tryin to make somethin out of nothin. I'm not runnin from anything I said nor am I denying that I said it, I just ask that posters understand the context in which I post before they try to "put words in my mouth" - peace

 

[thoughtone]

Na playa, when I posted the response to who did I believe: Dubya, Peolsi or Dick? You agreed with me! These are your words from post 14

Let me clarify and take the specter of your statement off of me. I think Cheney is a liar, unequivocally! Pelosi and Reid are weak and are politicians that don’t stand up to their convictions as strongly as I think they should. They are more interested in getting along. They should be taken to task for not apposing what they now claim is wrong, but Cheney had malice in his mind from the start. Now you clarify!

 

[Lamarr]

Let me clarify and take the specter of your statement off of me. I think Cheney is a liar, unequivocally! Pelosi and Reid are weak and are politicians that don’t stand up to their convictions as strongly as I think they should. They are more interested in getting along. They should be taken to task for not apposing what they now claim is wrong, but Cheney had malice in his mind from the start. Now you clarify!

fair enough but you agreed with me in the context of my statement. Look, I know what you meant but others wish to demonize / discredit me for whatever reasons.

I really don't feel the need to clarify but I'll take this oppurtunity to do so: Unlike Dubya & Pelosi (who are puppets), I just sense a genuine hatred towards humanity from Dick. Bottom line, just because I might believe him at his word don't mean I trust him - I'm through wit it

 

[QueEx]

I aint trippin, QueEx tryin to make somethin out of nothin. I'm not runnin from anything I said nor am I denying that I said it, I just ask that posters understand the context in which I post before they try to "put words in my mouth" - peace

Podnuh, I just posted what you said. I posted the whole thing and, not only that, the link to your statement was there for everyone to read and decide for themselves.

If people want to believe, that you're not backtracking on what you said previously -- or that you didn't mean what you said before -- then they have the facts laid out in order to make that judgment.

QueEx