|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jens 'n' Frens
Idle thoughts of a relatively libertarian Republican in Cambridge, MA, and whomever he invites. Mostly political.
"A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures."
-- Daniel Webster
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, March 31, 2004 :::
Dean, I don't see how the "brokered agreement" argument is credible. Essentially, all of the key figures have stated that they consider Rice's testimony to be a one-off thing that will not create a precedent. Their opinions, however, are nonbinding on future committees. Since there was no subpoena, though, the only precedent that is created is the precedent that the President can allow the testimony of a National Security Advisor under oath before a committee established by Congress. This precedent has been created, no matter what the parties involved claim. Further, it is exactly the same precedent that would have been established had Rice gone to testify under oath in the first place.
The other component of the "brokered agreement" is that the Committee will not subpoena Rice or any other member of the administration. This part of the agreement (1) implies that they have the right to subpoena Rice and other members of the administration, which undermines the administration's argument that they do not, and (2) makes it clear that the administration does not want other members of the administration called to testify under oath, raising the question: Why? Because they have something to hide? Or because the believe that such subpoenas would violate separation of powers? If the latter, what of their constitutional argument that such subpoenas would be invalid? Don't they believe this? Or are they just afraid to fight this issue publically? If the latter, why did they hold out so long on the Rice testimony?
It still doesn't make any sense to me outside the alternatives I discussed below.
::: posted by Eric at 10:18 PM
|
|
|
|
