Congress To Prez: Invade MY Privacy? Never
You don’t have to be a Glenn Greenwald to see the irony in a GOP-led Congress that doesn’t become concerned about the Bush Administration’s aggressive approach to privacy issues until it impacts one of their own:
After years of quietly acceding to the Bush administration’s assertions of executive power, the Republican-led Congress hit a limit this weekend.
Resentment boiled among senior Republicans for a second day on Tuesday after a team of warrant-bearing agents from the [FBI] turned up at a closed House office building on Saturday evening, demanded entry to the office of a lawmaker and spent the night going through his files.
The episode prompted cries of constitutional foul from Republicans — even though the lawmaker in question, Representative William J. Jefferson of Louisiana, is a Democrat whose involvement in a bribery case has made him an obvious partisan political target.
Speaker J. Dennis Hastert raised the issue personally with President Bush on Tuesday. The Senate Rules Committee is examining the episode.
Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the House majority leader, predicted that the separation-of-powers conflict would go to the Supreme Court. “I have to believe at the end of the day it is going to end up across the street,” Mr. Boehner told reporters gathered in his conference room, which looks out on the Capitol plaza and the court building.
A court challenge would place all three branches of government in the fray over whether the obscure “speech and debate” clause of the Constitution, which offers some legal immunity for lawmakers in the conduct of their official duties, could be interpreted to prohibit a search by the executive branch on Congressional property.
Lawmakers and outside analysts said that while the execution of a warrant on a Congressional office might be surprising — this appears to be the first time it has happened — it fit the Bush administration’s pattern of asserting broad executive authority, sometimes at the expense of the legislative and judicial branches.
Pursuing a course advocated by Vice President Dick Cheney, the administration has sought to establish primacy on domestic and foreign policy, not infrequently keeping much of Congress out of the loop unless forced to consult.
Notice the tone of the piece – this is the same Times accused by many bloggers on the left of anti-Democrat bias in the wake of the Clinton ‘hit piece’ yesterday.
The ironies are multiplying…
How would this story, reporting on the reaction of Congressional GOP, be at all indicative of a bias in either direction by the Times? I don’t see it at all.
There is a difference between a smear piece (which is what an A-1 story about marital affairs that makes no specific point whatsoever) about one of the leading candidates and an article about Bush’s program that has spurred quite a bit of debate in the recent months and finally, Reps are actually worried about it (but nothing will happen once again, it’s all show like Specter’s activities over the past few months). If they actually walk the walk I’ll eat my words.
Fargus, I was referring to statements like this:
Pursuing a course advocated by Vice President Dick Cheney, the administration has sought to establish primacy on domestic and foreign policy, not infrequently keeping much of Congress out of the loop unless forced to consult.
That’s not reporting, that’s editorializing…
It’s not editorializing: it’s fact. The administration has consistently kept most (or sometimes nearly all) of Congress out of the loop on many things, and this is something explicitly endorsed by Cheney. This includes the secrecy imposed on Cheney’s energy task force, the NSA data-mining, the warrantless eavesdropping, and the full range of pre-war intelligence. The number of documents classified by the government is at record levels, and there are numerous restrictions on government officials speaking to Congress and the public (or, as when Gonzales testifies, it is not under oath).
I’m still trying to figure out why equal treatment under the law isn’t an issue here. If I was the subject of a federal investigation, you can bet your bottom dollar that the FBI could come search my workplace, my home, or other locations that might hold valuable information if they had a properly executed warrant. Why should a U.S. Congressman be treated differently? His home had already been searched, and they apparently had ample evidence to pursue the case. His illegal activities were the result of his job and connections, so why would it not be appropriate to search his workplace as well for additional evidence?
It seems a dangerous precedent to say that a congressperson’s office is sacrosanct and beyond the reach of the law.
I know there is an element that worries about the Executive Branch overstepping its boundaries, but this guy is under criminal investigation! It’s not like they searched Lincoln Chaffee’s office or Bill Murtha’s desk. There is no evidence that this was politically motivated. It’s an effort to prosecute someone who is using the privilege of his office for personal gain.
Comrades,
I find it deliciously ironic that Congress, the same body which has no problem issuing subpoenas to members of the Executive Branch, now cries FOUL when they are hit with one.
No one is above the law, or outside it’s reach. No one.
Respects,
Gwedd
I agree with relish and Gwedd — this must be a first –
[...] Decision ‘08 » Blog Archive » Congress To Prez: Invade MY Privacy? Never After years of quietly acceding to the Bush administration’s assertions of executive power, the Republican-led Congress hit a limit this weekend. [...]