PDA

View Full Version : Executive Privilege and the NS Advisor


NousDefionsDoc
03-29-2004, 18:28
Should Doctor Rice be forced to testify under oath before the 9/11 comission?

lrd
03-29-2004, 18:34
With live coverage by CNN, FOX, etc., being broadcast around the world, or in private?

NousDefionsDoc
03-29-2004, 18:37
My understanding is they want it in public.

Sigi
03-29-2004, 18:37
They can classify it, but she should be forced to testify. She's the National Security Advisor. If nobody testifies, she should.

NousDefionsDoc
03-29-2004, 18:40
Why Sigi?

The Reaper
03-29-2004, 18:45
Originally posted by Sigi
They can classify it, but she should be forced to testify. She's the National Security Advisor. If nobody testifies, she should.

Umm, Sigi, she has already delivered 4.5 hours of private testimony to the commission.

The NSA has NEVER been required to testify publicly about anything like this. Do you really want her having to answer questions about who had what intel, and what was its source? Do you think she MIGHT receive classified information in order to do her job? Do you really think the public has a need to know that classified info? Hello??? Public testimony is no longer classified.

If she sets the precedent, I don't expect to hear any snivelling during the next Demo administration when they get called to testify about intel publicly.

TR

Sacamuelas
03-29-2004, 18:45
She has already been questioned for four+ hours by the panel. She volunteered then to come back at the committee's discretion. She has since offered to come back again if requested...

IMO, She should not be called in public. Sets a bad precedent and is not needed...

Sigi
03-29-2004, 18:45
She is the most important advisor the President has pertaining to Natl Security. She may take reports from subordinates, but she recommends what policy should be.

Not that I want to see her take all the heat, I feel that as the NS advisor she should answer as to what she took over from the last administration, what she recommened to President Bush, and where the failures were.

She is good people, and I like her.

I think they should classify it because there are some things I don't want people knowing. I am not sure what she knows or could say, so the prudent thing to do is classify it.

Sacamuelas
03-29-2004, 18:48
SIGI-
I think you are confused. You say she should testify "classified" . She already did. It was behind closed doors. I assume you did not know this.

If you did, then please explain how you can testify publicly and discuss classified information at the same time without violating your responsibility with safeguarding the info and its means of collection???

The Reaper
03-29-2004, 18:48
Originally posted by Sigi
She is the most important advisor the President has pertaining to Natl Security. She may take reports from subordinates, but she recommends what policy should be.

Not that I want to see her take all the heat, I feel that as the NS advisor she should answer as to what she took over from the last administration, what she recommened to President Bush, and where the failures were.

She is good people, and I like her.

I think they should classify it because there are some things I don't want people knowing. I am not sure what she knows or could say, so the prudent thing to do is classify it.

YOU CANNOT CLASSIFY PUBLIC TESTIMONY.

THE TESTIMONY YOU DESCRIBE WILL BURN SOURCES AND METHODS.

SHE ALREADY ANSWERED THEIR QUESTIONS PRIVATELY.

THIS IS A REQUEST BY THE COMMISSION TO PUBLICLY GRANDSTAND, AND KICK AN ADMINSTRATION OFFICIAL AROUND.

TR

I like the way you are thinking, Doc.

Sigi
03-29-2004, 18:51
Yes on making her testify, as many times as they would like her to.

No, on the public hearing.

My bad, I thought "classify" meant in private.

The 9/11 commission should not allow, let alone force, the NSA to testify in public.

My .02
I think I missed the spirit of the question.

Surgicalcric
03-29-2004, 18:54
Sigi:

She has already testified as to all the above.

It is just typical grandstanding. They, the Democrat leadership, are just trying to make it look as though this Administration has something to hide by not allowing her to testify in public. She has answered their questions once. They just want her to answer to allegations made by DICK Clarke.

As TR stated, the NSA has never had to testify under oath to Congress and doing so now would set a presedent. The information Dr Rice is privy to does not need to be broadcast to the public, not does it need to be under oath.

Surgicalcric
03-29-2004, 18:54
Double Tap. Sorry

DunbarFC
03-29-2004, 18:58
No


As The Reaper stated this is just political grandstanding.

Nothing will be gained by having her testify in public

Sigi
03-29-2004, 19:00
Originally posted by Surgicalcric
They, the Democrat leadership, are just trying to make it look as though this Administration has something to hide by not allowing her to testify in public. She has answered their questions once. They just want her to answer to allegations made by DICK Clarke.



Nothing is off limits to the democratic party. I missed the mark on the question. Dr Rice should testify to the commission in Private, and her remarks and the questions she is asked should not be made public.


I was under the impression that NDD was speaking about a second behind closed doors questioning. I'll sit back and learn the rest of the way.

Gypsy
03-29-2004, 20:22
Absolutely not. For all the reasons listed above and especially because I feel there is classified info that we, the general public, do not need to know. A very close second is IMHO the democrats are indeed grandstanding.

QRQ 30
03-29-2004, 20:29
Normally I would say no. However, even the RRepublicans feel it would be political suicide to fail to publically testify inder oath.

If the President can make his case, fine; but remember that at this time it is important that he be re-elected or the first four years will be trash.

Sacamuelas
03-29-2004, 20:37
QRQ 30,Sir ... I think you may be overlooking the ambush from the Dems if she did agree to testify.

All they would do is ask the same questions as they did when she testified behind closed doors.....EXCEPT she would have to answer a LOT of questions with a " I refuse to answer that question" or " I can not comment on that specific issue due to national security concerns". IT would appear to the ignorant TV viewer and specifically be portrayed by the lib media that she was attempting a "cover up". In reality, it would simply mean that some material is not suitable for public knowledge.

That and we would run the risk of some A-Hole demoRat phrasing a question in a manner that includes classified information just by posing it. It would be a cluster F&%$ and everyone knows it would only muddy the waters of public opinion.

Better to stick to their principles than give in and look secretive and defensive.

Pure political puppet show at this point. If it were really about a bipartisan commission seeking out the truth, this wouldn't be an issue as she has testified fully and completely to the commission. Just my.02

Ambush Master
03-29-2004, 21:00
Heard this afternoon that Clark had refused a similar demand while in the Clinton Camp using the same defence. When I have specifics, I'll update !!

CSB
03-29-2004, 21:09
"Condi Rice would be a superb witness... But the lawyers have concluded that to do so would alter the balance if we got into the practice of doing that." -- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld


Now that wins the prize for lame excuses. The client is the boss, not the lawyer.

I think the corrrect rendering is:

If they want to ask the woman questions, ask. She will answer.
If they want grandstanding for the camera, the President has the right -- and the duty -- to say no.

Radar Rider
03-30-2004, 02:40
Well given that Dr. Rice has ALREADY TESTIFIED, anything more would be unnecessary. Unless, of course, one of our major parties was just trying to score points or something. :rolleyes:

NousDefionsDoc
03-30-2004, 10:18
From AP

Mar 30, 10:22 AM (ET)

By PETE YOST

WASHINGTON (AP) - National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice will be allowed to testify in public under oath before the commission investigating the failure to prevent the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, an administration official said Tuesday.

The official said the decision is conditioned on the Bush administration receiving assurances in writing from the commission that such a step does not set a precedent, said the official speaking on condition of anonymity. It appeared the administration already had such assurances verbally in private and is confident it will get them in writing.

White House legal counsel Alberto Gonzales has sent a letter to the commission stating that Rice is prepared to testify publicly as long as the administration receives assurances from the panel that this is not precedent setting, the official said.

Congressional leaders, the official added, have already stated that this would not be a new precedent.

Rice had appeared before the panel in private, but the White House had refused to make her available to testify in public.

"Nothing would be better, from my point of view, than to be able to testify" to the commission, Rice said in a "60 Minutes" interview broadcast Sunday.

But, she added, "there is an important principle involved here: It is a long-standing principle that sitting national security advisers do not testify before the Congress."

Sigi
04-01-2004, 16:06
She testifies a week from today, according to Fox News.

D9
04-01-2004, 16:32
Late arriving here, sorry.

Before one even gets to the question of whether or not she should testify, one has to ask whether or not this 9/11 Commission is a sincere attempt at understanding the root causes of 9/11, or a big, partisan, kangaroo court designed to make scapegoats.

Any "investigation" into the causes of 9/11 that does not have as its focus the two decades preceding the attack - and preferably even further back - is absurd on its face.

The idea of a 9/11 Commission is good. The way they're going about it is a farce. With all of this as a backdrop, I would say that NOBODY should be wasting their time with these clowns, much less speaking publicly about matters which should be classified.

Radar Rider
04-01-2004, 20:53
I'm not the biggest Jay Leno fan, but the other night he put one out there that really put things into perspective:

"You know what I hate about these hearings - they keep asking who’s fault was 9-11. Bush administration blames it on Clinton. The Clinton administration blames it on Bush. How about the bin Laden administration? Anybody think of that?"

Just something to consider.

DanUCSB
04-01-2004, 20:56
On the surface, the idea of a 9/11 Commission is a good one. In principle. But in reality, there is no conceivable way of making it into anything but a scapegoat-searching politicofest. I suppose, maybe, if you got every person involved willing to forswear partisan bickering, point-scoring, camera-grandstanding, and soundbite-producing, maybe. But like I said. No conceivable way.

Oh, and gee! weird! It's an election year. Imagine that.

--Dan

CPTAUSRET
04-01-2004, 21:02
There are a great many things which Dr Rice is privy to that, under no circumstances should she be asked to testify about!

I do not trust the Dem's to respect that premise:

Terry

Maya
04-01-2004, 23:42
We have been so indoctrinated into fearing / mistrusting authority, any authority, that we have abdicated our reason and thereby opened ourselves to enslavement of thought to "sincere" folks who "only want to find the truth" for the children....

Pavlov's dogs.... the bell is any group that cries "We are not going to stop until we get to the bottom for the REAL REASON why 9-11 occurred". It must be our fault, wait it's not our fault it's the government's...W's government, and they are the ones who caused this". The media smells blood because these fine folks always get blood. They will try to place blame on W for not doing more to stop these poor oppressed freedom fighters that had no other choice but to act out against the great Satan state. Truth has very little to do with this circus, feelings and "concerns" rule this ilk of "political inquisition". They attempt to inflict such public pain, hateful slander, and truly evil personal attacks that the "target" finally retreats into obscurity. I think it was Benjamin Franklin that said "no man can withstand the harsh light of personal scrutiny forever". The pack has learned and perfected this tactic and is once again trying to point that light on W, Rice, Rummy, Powell, etc., etc., in order to affect a change of power by ringing the bell for Pavlov's pack. Create an overwhelming cry of "outrage-abandonment-betrayal" toward this administration in the minds of our weak minded fellow citizens that allow their will to be dominated by this brood of vipers. They fan the flame of self-centered obsession in the audience that looses sight of the larger purpose and higher goals of Honor, Duty, and Country.

If these politico's are 'sooooo' concerned about our guys standing in harms way, and the victims of 9-11, and more recently our guys who were desecrated yesterday by the animals in Iraq, then they should stop their grand standing and posturing for political/financial gain, support our efforts in getting the evil that truely caused all of this pain, empower our forces to enable their capture, better yet their demise, and bring them down. Leave those alone who are doing the hard work of going after these BG's and stop jerking off the American people.

Maya $.02

Radar Rider
04-02-2004, 00:22
Originally posted by CPTAUSRET
There are a great many things which Dr Rice is privy to that, under no circumstances should she be asked to testify about!

I do not trust the Dem's to respect that premise:

Terry Sir, that is so telling an observation! Even in our free society, some things MUST remain secret. The 9-11 commision won't do us any good, as the damage has already been done. Will it help to prevent future incidents? Probably not. All that can be done is being done already. Believe it or not, the tangos are being taken care of. The commission is there now only to point fingers. Some of those sitting on the commission might very well need to take a hard look at what they were doing over the last ten years.