I spent part of my Friday night watching the replay of a hearing of the House Committee on Government Reform's Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats, and International Relations from Tuesday. (That's the geek part :) )
The scary part? The content of the hearing, specifically the testimony of the Chair and Vice-Chair of the White House Privacy and Civil liberties Oversight Board. Or perhaps I should say, the "non-specific" testimony of the chair and vice-chair. Whenever they were asked specific questions (mostly by Chris Van Hollen D-MD and Carolyn Maloney D-NY), they gave a non-answer. They didn't refuse to answer; that would have been too obvious, and given that they were under oath, probably opened up a legal can of worms that none present wanted opened.
The Chair of the Oversight Board, Carol Dinkins, was especially good at this. When she was pointedly asked if she thought granting subpoena power to the Board would help the Board perform its duties, she made it clear that the Board, while answerable to Congress, was part of the executive branch.
She went on to add "the executive branch does not subpoena itself" leading many in the audience (including me!) to believe that even if the Board has the authority to issue subpoenas, it would not be used.
It was also made clear the the US Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) each have veto power over any investigations conducted by the oversight board; they also made it clear that if the Board requests information of an agency, and that agency refuses to give them that information, nothing will be done.
In addition, the probing questions brought out the fact that the Board has been VERY slow to start operations. Initially recommended by the 9/11 Commission in 1994, the Board first met this year and currently has all of two (yup, count 'em, 2) employees - the Director and an Administrative Assistant.
In essence, it's a completely non-functioning government board that wouldn't do anything even if it was functioning.
The transcript of her testimony is here, but not her answers to the questions.
It should be noted that Ms. Dinkins is a long-time Republican water-carrier/Bush crony, with stints in the Reagan-era DOJ and on various boards and committees from the same era, as well as serving on the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission during W's term as governor of Texas.
Her Vice Chair, Alan Charles Raul, has a similar resume, though he is more of a GOP D.C. insider than a Texas insider like Ms. Dinkins.
Simply put, the testimony of Ms. Dinkins and Mr. Raul was a strokejob. It was done politely, but obviously. They, and their employers in the Bush admin, have no intent of allowing ANY oversight of their acts, not even the most rudimentary.
ARRGGGGGHHHHHHH!!
OK, I feel better. LOL.
On a mildly more positive note, I was impressed by the way the subcommittee chair, Chris Shays D-CT, handled the guests before his committee, particularly a group of relatives of 9/11 victims. He was both civil and respectful. If there were more Republicans like him, the Congress and the country would be infinitely better off.
On a less positive note, wherethehell was the rest of the subcommittee? There are 20 members listed on the roster (11 Reps, 9 Dems) and only 3 showed up! Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but it seems that most of the members of Congress have as much respect for civil liberties as does the White House.
End rant. Thanks for listening.
No comments:
Post a Comment