« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
VP Cheney's Private Residence To Be Searched -- Court Order
The court says the Ambramoff visitor logs at the White House must be disclosed:
DHS, Secret Service Ordered To Disclose Abramoff Visit Logs To WHTPMM shares a summary of the court order:
"The Secret Service had asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit, sayingThe Secret Service argument is analogous to hiding the laws because the public might learn what the government is concerned about. That is illegitimate government.
that knowing what prompts background checks could promote criminal
activity."
Crew: "The court is not convinced that the information plaintiff primarilyExclusive
seeks — the name of a visitor, the dates and times of his visits, and
the person(s) visited — would allow even the most dedicated would-be
criminal to discern what visitor characteristics trigger ... a security
check," Lamberth wrote in one of the orders.
Another order directs the search of the Vice President's private residence:
Order: "search of records at the residence of the vice President" Backup link: 30.6kb
Advertisement
Comments (9)
The order to search Cheney's residence is important because it contradicts the earlier assertions the records were immune from discovery.
The Vice President and Secret Service had been destroying records:
The destruction plan was disclosed in the court filings:
The Secret Service, according to the WaPo, said they were hand-writing the access logs:
October 3, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey testing this is michael144. I wish this site allowed a message author feature...Anyway I'm the one who posted that memory I had on the morning of 9/11 and since TPM doesn't have an email alert feature when someone comments on your posts, I completely forgot I even signed up here...I replied to several of the comments to clarify my memory if you want to check it out
they-put-it-out-on-the-wire-before-it-happened
October 6, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Contradiction: OVP Destroyed What Knew Should Have Been Retained
One of the baffling claims about the OVP records were the inconsistent claims the OVP records were official records; yet, they had to be destroyed.
The OVP legal counsel said he logs were subject to the Records act, but cannot explain why there were not retained. The order to destroy the records was not lawful; and the destruction of those records was not lawful.
- Who failed to do a review of the order to destroy the records?
- What is the explanation for, after asserting the records were subject to the act, that someone agreed to destroy the very documents that should have been retained?
- Who should have reasonably known those records were protected, but obeyed an illegal order to destroy those protected records?
- Why, despite the OVP legal counsel understanding the records should have been retained, was there no OVP legal counsel plan to fully preserve the documents?
- How does OVP legal counsel justify arguing the documents were protected, but there was no document retention plan in place to fully meet their legal obligations?
Code of Federal Regulations
It's not as though there were unclear legal standards:
October 3, 2008 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
The OVP documents appear to have been "classified" using an administrative rule, but this is a problem. The CFR prohibits this classification:
October 3, 2008 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Take a look at this which shows what evidence should have been gathered once the OVP lawyers admitted these records were subject to the Presidential records act.
The illusion is these records are only available through OVP. Wrong. Members of Congress have had an oversight responsibility to ensure compliance with the law, going back to the pre-Waxman days.
The gap isn't only within OVP, but within the GOP-controlled committee correspondence. If the Congress is not willing to take action to enforce the law, then it is saying it does not care whether legislative tools -- Acts of Congress -- are or are not enforced. That is not governance.
October 3, 2008 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Criminal Investigation into OVP
This is not a simple issue of OVP destroying vistor-entry logs, but the larger issue of Geneva compliance, and OVP-connected evidence related to violations of the laws of war.
Recall, Secretary of Rice recently disclosed there were high level OVP legal counsel present during the POW abuse meetings. It stands to reasn one motivation of OVP to thwart public access to any record was to block voters from understanding the OVP involvement with war crimes.
The Justice Trial at Nuremberg established that civilians can be adjudicated with war crimes if they fail to fully meet their legal obligations under the laws of war. This legal requirement applies to the OIG inspectors, OVP legal counsel, and OVP staff with legal obligations to preserve this evidence.
The information in this comment relates to the war crimes investigation targeting legal counsel. It remains unclear how much OVP-connected evidence was illegally destroyed, despite a legal requirement to preserve those official records.
Safeguard your original evidence. If you have additional information, here is the National Archives Inspector General:
Encourage the National Archives Inspector General to work with Congress to disclose the audit reports of the OVP compliance programs. The public needs to know the following, which substantially mirror the recommendations from the September 2008 "Amherst War Crimes Conference":
October 3, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Comment Part I of II
Here is a summary of the Rice written statements to the Senate on OVP-connected personnel involved with POW abuse planning.
See page 3 of 42 to find David Addington's name on the list of names Rice provided to the Senate on alleged planned war crimes against POWs in violation of the laws of war. Recall, Addington and Rizzo (CIA General Counsel) went to Guantanamo, and are listed in the DoD emails with a trip report.
October 3, 2008 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Comment Part II of II
12 of 16, Tab6, shows Addington, Rizzo, and Chertoff visited Guantanamo. This is important because it connects Rice to Addington; and the conversations and reviews at Guantanamo.
It is reasonable to presume Addington-Rizzo-Chertoff were jointly visiting Guantanamo at the behest of the President. They likely asked no questions, as indicated at Tab6 above, because all disclosed practices were consistent with the President's plan to (a) ignore Geneva, and (b) not ensure, as required, that the United States as a detaining power would fully meeet its legal obligations under Geneva.
Rice in her response to the Senate only denied meeting with Bybee, but did not deny meeting with Addington.
October 3, 2008 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds like we should pressure our congressmen to hear from the Archives inspector, and to require him to pursue these matters.
October 3, 2008 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment