DOCSLIB.ORG

Congressional Record—Senate S5492

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Congressional Record—Senate S5492 S5492 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 2, 2007 Mr. HARKIN. Yes, I have received a assurances of the chairman and the system. Small ‘‘p’’ politics, the imposition of good many calls as well. And, I have to ranking Republican on the committee. discretionary preferences, policies and prior- ities in the focus of prosecutorial discretion, say that I would be very concerned, as f I know the Senator from Utah is, if generally are proper. Partisans must accept MORNING BUSINESS them, like it or not. They are not the basis anything in the bill we are considering, for replacing attorneys general. S. 1082, would overturn DSHEA, a law Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I The distinction is important. When the we fought side-by-side to see enacted. ask unanimous consent that there now Justice Department that I served in during Mr. ENZI. It might be helpful if I ex- be a period of morning business with the Kennedy administration came to office, plained the provision you are dis- Senators permitted to speak therein ‘‘political’’ priorities changed. The internal cussing, as my office has received for up to 10 minutes each. security division, active and robust during many calls as well and I believe the The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without the Eisenhower administration when loyalty callers are not informed about this objection, it is so ordered. was a major concern, was de-emphasized and eventually was deactivated. The organized matter. Subtitle B of title II of S. 1028 f crime and the civil rights sections, small and establishes the Reagan-Udall Founda- DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE quiet in earlier years, grew into major cen- tion for the Food and Drug Administra- ters of departmental work and were the cen- tion. That simple purpose of that non- Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, when terpiece of RFK’s regime. That kind of pri- profit Foundation is to lead collabora- I was a young law student at George- ority setting is proper. tions among the FDA, academic re- town, the event that stands out the Administrations come to office offering search institutions and industry de- most in my memory was a morning change. Like these changes or not, people signed to bolster research and develop- that I and a few other young law stu- cannot claim they involve improper politics. dents working at various agencies for Critics have the right to change administra- ment productivity, provide new tools tions with their votes in subsequent elec- for improving safety in regulated prod- the summer had with the then Attor- tions. Had Al Gore been elected, no doubt en- uct evaluation, and in the long term ney General. It was Attorney General vironmental prosecutions would have taken make the development of those prod- Robert Kennedy. In that meeting, he front and center in the department’s efforts. ucts more predictable and manageable. stressed to us over and over again the After Sept. 11, 2001, homeland security Mr. KENNEDY. That is exactly the professionalism of the Department of would have been any attorney general’s spe- purpose of the Foundation, which was Justice and how the professionals had cial interest, RFK’s included. So if one de- included in the drug safety legislation to stay out of any kind of partisan pol- plores the values and priorities of the John itics and that he would insist upon it. Ashcroft and Gonzales administrations at Senator ENZI and I introduced last Justice, USA Patriot Act excesses and the year. The Foundation will be finan- I was inspired by that meeting. I like, the recourse will be at the 2008 voting cially supported by industry and phil- think it probably shaped my decision machines. anthropic donated funds. A chief sci- to go into public life more than any On the other hand, capital ‘‘P’’ party poli- entist at FDA will promote intramural other single meeting I had. tics have no place in any Justice Depart- research and coordinate it with efforts I ask unanimous consent that an ar- ment. That is the unique indictment of at the Foundation. ticle in today’s USA Today by Ronald Gonzales, and one that should lead to his re- Mr. HATCH. That explanation is very Goldfarb entitled ‘‘Crossing the Line at placement. All attorneys general face polit- ical pressure to act against their parties’ po- Justice’’ be printed in the RECORD. helpful. What, specifically, would the litical enemies and to protect their friends. role of the Foundation be with respect There being no objection, the mate- Those are the moments of truth for all attor- to dietary supplements? rial was ordered to be printed in the neys general, the one that Gonzales failed, to Mr. KENNEDY. Let me make abso- RECORD, as follows: the embarrassment of even his own party lutely clear that the Reagan-Udall [From USA Today, Wednesday, May 2, 2007] representatives. Foundation will in no way override, CROSSING A LINE AT JUSTICE RFK’S TESTS overturn or conflict with the Dietary (By Ronald Goldfarb) When RFK was attorney general, two com- parable moments stand out in my memory. Supplement Health and Education Act. The current agonies of Attorney General In one, his notorious father’s long-time at- Nothing in this bill would have that ef- Alberto Gonzales call to mind a dramatic torney—James Landis, ‘‘a virtual member of fect. moment in the Robert F. Kennedy Justice the immediate family,’’ according to one bi- Mr. ENZI. Yes, we took great pains Department. Members of his organized crime ography—was charged with failing to file his to make certain there would be no con- section were in RFK’s office reviewing our tax returns for five years. Immense pressures pending investigations and cases. One of our flict with DSHEA. Regarding foods, were put on Kennedy to find an excuse not to group advised Kennedy that his grand jury and dietary supplements are generally indict the aging and prestigious former Har- investigations were about to lead to the in- regulated as foods, the general direc- vard law dean. RFK stayed out of the deci- dictment of the then-mayor of a large Mid- tive of the Foundation is to identify sion-making process, and Landis pleaded western city, one that had voted for his guilty and received a brief incarceration. holes in the evaluation of food safety brother John Kennedy in the close presi- But for his close association with the Ken- and identify ways to address those defi- dential election of 1960. nedys, Landis probably would not have suf- ciencies through collaborative research When my colleague completed his report fered so. Everyone wanted to help Landis, with industry. about the big scalp about to be added to our but they were super self-conscious about the Mr. HARKIN. So to make this abso- list of political corruption cases, RFK was propriety of doing so. quiet. It happened that the scalp in question lutely clear, what you are saying is A similar moment arose when an inves- belonged to President Kennedy’s ambas- that the bill we are debating would in tigation showed that the brother of the in- sador-designate to Greece. The attorney gen- no way interfere with consumers’ ac- fluential congressman from New York, Eu- eral smiled slightly and facetiously re- gene Keogh, had abused his office as a New cess to dietary supplements? marked: ‘‘Well, that’s nice. Now my broth- York state supreme court judge. Kennedy Mr. HATCH. To add to that point, it er’s going to have to put me on the Supreme agonized over the political pressures on him; seems that the language could, in fact, Court.’’ The indictment went forward and in- he worried that the not open-and-shut case help dietary supplement consumers, be- cluded others in the city’s political (Demo- might not be winnable, after major political cause it would allow collaboration be- cratic) machine. All were convicted. embarrassment to Kennedy loyalists. To his That anecdote is relevant today as the tween government and industry to con- credit, Keogh told Kennedy he knew he’d do Senate Judiciary Committee considers the duct research on issues that might be the right and fair thing. The attorney gen- attorney general’s recent dismissals of sev- helpful to supplement consumers? eral’s aides pressed him to do what he’d do in eral U.S. attorneys. When it comes to the Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, that is the case. any other non-political case. Judge J. Vin- proper administration of justice in the De- cent Keogh was indicted and convicted. That Mr. ENZI. I agree with Chairman partment of Justice, there are politics and is the only way an attorney general can keep KENNEDY’s assessment. there are politics. Mr. HATCH. I thank you for those as- the balance of justice even and credible. THE TWO P’S surances and that clarification. Gonzales needed aides who spoke to him Mr. HARKIN. This has been a very Capital ‘‘P’’ politics—that is, party poli- with comparable candor and rectitude. In- tics, such as the partisan personal shenani- stead, he is falling on his sword over the U.S. helpful discussion, because Senator gans of Gonzales meddling with the inde- attorney firings that he administered with- HATCH and I could never support legis- pendence of competent prosecutors’ discre- out knowing, as he has testified, much about lation that would interfere with tion in response to political pressures—are them at the time. Like former vice presi- DSHEA and we are glad to receive the improper and have no place in the justice dential aide Lewis ‘‘Scooter’’ Libby in the VerDate Aug 31 2005 02:43 May 03, 2007 Jkt 059060 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G02MY6.059 S02MYPT1 ccoleman on PRODPC74 with SENATE May 2, 2007 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S5493 Valerie Plame leak case, others set the polit- different Commanders, Allied Air REMOVAL OF COSPONSOR ical process in motion, and the loyal aide did Forces in Southern Europe.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Presidential Appointments Primer
    2021 NALEO Presidential Appointments Primer 2021 NALEO | PRESIDENTIAL APPOINTMENTS PRIMER America’s Latinos are strongly committed to public service at all levels of government, and possess a wealth of knowledge and skills to contribute as elected and appointed officials. The number of Latinos in our nation’s civic leadership has been steadily increasing as Latinos successfully pursue top positions in the public and private sectors. Throughout their tenure, and particularly during times of transition following elections, Presidential administrations seek to fill thousands of public service leadership and high-level support positions, and governing spots on advisory boards, commissions, and other bodies within the federal government. A strong Latino presence in the highest level appointments of President Joe Biden’s Administration is crucial to help ensure that the Administration develops policies and priorities that effectively address the issues facing the Latino community and all Americans. The National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO) Educational Fund is committed to ensuring that the Biden Administration appoints qualified Latinos to top government positions, including those in the Executive Office of the President, Cabinet-level agencies, sub-Cabinet, and the federal judiciary. This Primer provides information about the top positions available in the Biden Administration and how to secure them through the appointments process. 2021 NALEO | PRESIDENTIAL APPOINTMENTS PRIMER 2 2021 NALEO Presidential Appointments Primer TABLE OF CONTENTS BACKGROUND 4 AVAILABLE POSITIONS AND COMPENSATION 5 HOW TO APPLY 8 TYPICAL STEPS 10 In the Presidential Appointments Process NECESSARY CREDENTIALS 11 IS IT WORTH IT? 12 Challenges and Opportunities Of Presidential Appointments ADVOCACY & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 13 For Latino Candidates & Nominees 2021 NALEO | PRESIDENTIAL APPOINTMENTS PRIMER 3 BACKGROUND During the 1970’s and 1980’s, there were very few Latinos considered for appointments in the federal government.
    [Show full text]
  • Report of Investigation Regarding Allegations of Mishandling of Classified Documents by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Septe
    U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General Report of Investigation Regarding Allegations of Mishandling of Classified Documents by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales Office of the Inspector General Oversight and Review Division September 2, 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... 1 II. BACKGROUND................................................................................. 2 A. Gonzales’s Professional Background........................................ 2 B. Overview of National Security Information Classification.......... 3 C. Security Facilities Available to Gonzales as Attorney General for the Handling of Classified Materials ................................... 4 1. Justice Department ....................................................... 4 2. Gonzales’s Residences.................................................... 5 D. Security Briefings Received by Gonzales as White House Counsel and as Attorney General ............................................ 7 III. GONZALES’S HANDLING OF CERTAIN CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS... 8 A. Creation and Handling of the Handwritten Notes as White House Counsel .............................................................. 8 B. Gonzales’s Handling of the Handwritten Notes After He Was Sworn In As Attorney General ........................................ 11 C. Gonzales’s Handling of the Notes and Other SCI Documents as Attorney General............................................................... 14 1. OAG practices
    [Show full text]
  • Political Interference and the Challenges Facing the US
    THE YALE LAW JOURNAL FORUM JANUARY 15, 2021 Treat Every Defendant Equally and Fairly: Political Interference and the Challenges Facing the U.S. Attorneys’ Offices as the Justice Department Turns 150 Years Old Joyce White Vance abstract. The US Attorneys’ Offices are the flagships of the federal government’s law-en- forcement work. But as the Department of Justice (DOJ) approaches its 150th anniversary, there are deep concerns for their future. The four years of the Trump Administration have shaken public confidence in DOJ, and during his tenure, Attorney General William Barr all too ofen took on the role of the President’s lawyer rather than upholding the integrity and credibility of line prosecutors to work free from political interference. This Essay, written in the weeks leading up to the 2020 presidential election,1 argues that, in a new administration, there must be a hardcore realignment of cultural values inside of the Justice Department that supports its independence and permits line prosecutors to effectively resist and reject political interference in criminal matters. The past four years have revealed frailty in the Department that requires more than the new laws and new poli- cies that will be designed to shore up some of the weaknesses that have been revealed. Ultimately, even with those new laws and policies, there must be a culture restoration that guarantees they will be implemented effectively so that the independence of prosecutions from political influence, which is critical to our criminal-justice system, is firmly in place. introduction The moment when Aaron Zelinsky, an Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) in the District of Maryland, refused to silently stand by while Attorney 1.
    [Show full text]
  • The Court's Constitution
    THE COURT’S CONSTITUTION L.A. Powe, Jr.* Departmentalism—the ability and right of each branch of the federal government to interpret the Constitution for itself—has a long and often honorable history.1 But within the past seven decades the Supreme Court has come to dominate constitutional interpreta- tion, and more recently has made clear that it intends to keep the Constitution as its own preserve. If a successful case or controversy can be framed, then when faced with claims for independent consti- tutional interpretation from other branches, the Court may assert that it defers when it agrees with that branch’s interpretation, but the deference disappears when it disagrees. I Three months after his landslide 1936 reelection victory, Presi- dent Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed expanding the number of Su- preme Court justices from nine to fifteen. The Court-packing plan was a direct response to a conservative majority on the Court that had invalidated ten major New Deal statutes, including its industrial and agricultural centerpieces, in the previous two years and seemed poised to finish off the rest of the New Deal in the next year or so. A cartoon shows FDR rehearsing his six new smiling justices. He instructs: “Great! Now, once more, all together.” The six exclaim “Yes!” in unison. The Constitution and the Scales of Justice are par- tially visible in a trash barrel.2 The cartoon was spot on. Not only Republicans, but also a number of Progressives believed that Roose- * Anne Green Regents Chair, The University of Texas. This essay is largely taken from my THE SUPREME COURT AND THE AMERICAN ELITE, 1789–2008 (2009).
    [Show full text]
  • Statement of Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General, Before the Select Committee on Intelligence United States Senate Concerning
    U.S. Department of Justice Seal Department of Justice STATEMENT OF ALBERTO R. GONZALES ATTORNEY GENERAL BEFORE THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE UNITED STATES SENATE CONCERNING THE TERRORIST SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM AUTHORIZED BY THE PRESIDENT PRESENTED ON FEBRUARY 9,2006 PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ALBERTO R. GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES We cannot forget the threat that the al Qaeda terrorist network poses to our Nation. Long before September 11th, al Qaeda promised to attack the United States. In 1998, Osama bin Laden declared a jihad against our country, and incited "every Muslim who can do it" "[t]o kill the Americans and their allies—civilians and military" "in any country in which it is possible to do it." Statement of Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, et al., Fatwah Urging Jihad Against Americans, published in Al-Quds al-'Arabi (Feb. 23, 1998). Al Qaeda members and agents have carried out bin Laden's orders with a vengeance; al Qaeda attacked the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen, the United States Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and then, of course, the United States itself on September 11, 2001. On September 11th, the al Qaeda terrorist network executed the most deadly foreign attacks on this Nation's soil in history. Al Qaeda planners and operatives carefully selected and hijacked four commercial jetliners, each fully loaded with fuel for a transcontinental flight. Within hours, the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center lay in ruin. The terrorists also managed to strike the headquarters of the Nation's Armed Forces, the Pentagon.
    [Show full text]
  • Political Control of Federal Prosecutions: Looking Back and Looking Forward
    Columbia Law School Scholarship Archive Faculty Scholarship Faculty Publications 2009 Political Control of Federal Prosecutions: Looking Back and Looking Forward Daniel C. Richman Columbia Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Administrative Law Commons, Law and Politics Commons, and the President/Executive Department Commons Recommended Citation Daniel C. Richman, Political Control of Federal Prosecutions: Looking Back and Looking Forward, 58 DUKE L. J. 2087 (2009). Available at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/2464 This Essay is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Publications at Scholarship Archive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Scholarship Archive. For more information, please contact [email protected]. POLITICAL CONTROL OF FEDERAL PROSECUTIONS: LOOKING BACK AND LOOKING FORWARD DANIEL RICHMANt ABSTRACT This Essay explores the mechanisms of control over federal criminal enforcement that the administration and Congress used or failed to use during George W. Bush's presidency. It gives particular attention to Congress, not because legislators played a dominant role, but because they generally chose to play such a subordinate role. My fear is that the media focus on management inadequacies or abuses within the Justice Department during the Bush administrationmight lead policymakers and observers to overlook the
    [Show full text]
  • Senior Leadership Electronic Records from Administration of Janet Reno (1993-2001 ), John Ashcroft (2001-2005), Alberto Gonzales
    NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION Request for Records DlsposlUon Aulhority Records Schedule: DAA-0080-2015-0008 Request for Records Disposition Authority Records Schedule Number DAA-0060-2015-0008 Schedule Status Modified Approved Version Agency or Establishment Department of Justice Record Group I Scheduling Group General Records of the Department of Justice Records Schedule applies to Major Subdivsion Major Subdivision Senior Leadership Offices Minor Subdivision Office of the Attorney General, Office of the Deputy Attorney General, Office of the Associate Attorney General Schedule Subject Electronic Records of the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, Associate Attorney General, and their program staffs from the administrations of Janet Reno (1993-2001 ), John Ashcroft (2001-2005), Alberto Gonzales (2005-2007), and Michael Mukasey (2007-2009). Internal agency concurrences will No be provided Background Information These records are legacy electronic records that do not fall under old, paper-based, non-media neutral schedules, nor do they fall under the 2010 media neutral schedule, which is for the administration of Eric Holder and forward. Item Count Number of Total Disposition Number of Permanent Number of Temporary Number of Withdrawn Items Disposition Items Disposition Items Disposition Items 1 1 0 0 GAO Approval Eleclronlc Records Archives Page 1 of& PDF Created on: 11/20/2017 NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION Request for Records DlsposlUon Aulharlty Records Schedule: DAA.OD&D.ZD15-0DD8 Outline of Records Schedule Items for DM-0060-2015-0008 Sequence Number 1 Electronic Records of the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, Associate A ttorney General, and their program staffs from the administrations of Janet Reno (1 993-2001), John Ashcroft (2001-2005), Alberto Gonzales (2005-2007), and Michae I Mukasey (2007-2009).
    [Show full text]
  • Detention and Military Trial of Suspected Terrorists: Stretching Presidential Power
    Detention and Military Trial of Suspected Terrorists: Stretching Presidential Power Louis Fisher* The system of detention and military trial authorized by President George W. Bush on November 13, 2001,1 and additional claimed authority to hold terrorist suspects indefinitely without process, have been litigated in several judicial circuits, moving from district courts to the Supreme Court and back down again. In 2006, these authorities returned to the Court for further exploration in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.2 Regrettably, until very recently the separation of powers issues raised by the President’s initiatives received little attention from Congress, which, under the Constitution, has primary responsibility over military courts, tribunals “inferior to the supreme Court,” “Offenses against the Law of Nations,” the war power, and “Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.”3 Because of congressional passivity, the principal checks on presidential power have been supplied instead by litigants and courts. The constitutional issues that emerge from this concentration of power in the presidency form the central theme of this article. I. CONSTITUTIONAL JUSTIFICATIONS The military order issued by President Bush on November 13, 2001, provides for the detention and trial by military commission of non-U.S. citizens who are members of al Qaeda or who participate in or offer assistance to the terrorist activities of that group or similar organizations.4 The order draws heavily from language in Proclamation 2561,5 issued by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1942 after the capture of eight German saboteurs. The proclamation denied access to the courts by enemy saboteurs and spies entering the United States, and a contemporaneous military order6 appointed * Specialist in Constitutional Law at the Law Library, Library of Congress.
    [Show full text]
  • Proceedings of the United States Senate in the Impeachment Trial Of
    1 116TH CONGRESS " ! S. DOC. 2d Session SENATE 116–12 PROCEEDINGS OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE IN THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF PRESIDENT DONALD JOHN TRUMP PART III PART III OF IV VerDate Sep 11 2014 17:12 Jan 20, 2020 Jkt 039382 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6012 Sfmt 6012 E:\HR\OC\SD012P3.XXX SD012P3 tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with SENATE DOC E:\Seals\Congress.#13 1 116TH CONGRESS " ! S. DOC. 2d Session SENATE 116–12 PROCEEDINGS OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE IN THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF PRESIDENT DONALD JOHN TRUMP PART III PART III OF IV U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 39–382 WASHINGTON : 2020 VerDate Sep 11 2014 17:12 Jan 20, 2020 Jkt 039382 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4012 Sfmt 4012 E:\HR\OC\SD012P3.XXX SD012P3 tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with SENATE DOC E:\Seals\Congress.#13 VerDate Sep 11 2014 17:12 Jan 20, 2020 Jkt 039382 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4012 Sfmt 4012 E:\HR\OC\SD012P3.XXX SD012P3 tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with SENATE DOC C O N T E N T S Page PART III 1. Replication of the United States House of Representatives to the Answer of President Donald J. Trump to the Articles of Impeachment ............................................................................................... 129 2. Trial Memorandum of President Donald J. Trump .................................. 139 (III) VerDate Sep 11 2014 21:28 Jan 20, 2020 Jkt 039382 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 0486 E:\HR\OC\SD012P3.XXX SD012P3 tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with SENATE DOC VerDate Sep 11 2014 17:12 Jan 20, 2020 Jkt 039382 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 0486 E:\HR\OC\SD012P3.XXX SD012P3 tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with SENATE DOC IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Sitting as a Court of Impeachment In re IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT DONALD J.
    [Show full text]
  • Important Figures in the NSC
    Important Figures in the NSC Nixon Administration (1969-1973) National Security Council: President: Richard Nixon Vice President: Spiro Agnew Secretary of State: William Rogers Secretary of Defense: Melvin Laird Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (APNSA): Henry Kissinger Director of CIA: Richard Helms Chairman of Joint Chiefs: General Earle Wheeler / Admiral Thomas H. Moorer Director of USIA: Frank Shakespeare Director of Office of Emergency Preparedness: Brig. Gen. George Lincoln National Security Council Review Group (established with NSDM 2) APNSA: Henry A. Kissinger Rep. of Secretary of State: John N. Irwin, II Rep. of Secretary of Defense: David Packard, Bill Clements Rep. of Chairman of Joint Chiefs: Adm. Thomas H. Moorer Rep. of Director of CIA: Richard Helms, James R. Schlesinger, William E. Colby National Security Council Senior Review Group (NSDM 85—replaces NSCRG/ NSDM 2) APNSA: Henry A. Kissinger Under Secretary of State: Elliott L. Richardson / John N. Irwin, II Deputy Secretary of Defense: David Packard / Bill Clements Director of Central Intelligence: Richard Helms Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff: General Earle Wheeler / Admiral Thomas H. Moorer Under Secretary’s Committee: Under Secretary of State: Elliott L. Richardson / John N. Irwin, II APNSA: Henry Kissinger Deputy Secretary of Defense: David Packard / Bill Clements Chairman of Joint Chiefs: Gen. Earle G. Wheeler / Adm. Thomas H. Moorer Director of CIA: Richard M. Helms Nixon/Ford Administration (1973-1977) National Security Council: President: Richard Nixon (1973-1974) Gerald Ford (1974-1977) Vice President: Gerald Ford (1973-1974) Secretary of State: Henry Kissinger Secretary of Defense: James Schlesinger / Donald Rumsfeld APNSA: Henry Kissinger / Brent Scowcroft Director of CIA: Richard Helms / James R.
    [Show full text]
  • On Secrecy and Transparency: Thoughts for Congress and a New Administration
    On Secrecy and Transparency: Thoughts for Congress and a New Administration By Geoffrey R. Stone June 2008 All expressions of opinion are those of the author or authors. The American Constitution Society (ACS) takes no position on specific legal or policy initiatives. On Secrecy and Transparency: Thoughts for Congress and a New Administration Geoffrey R. Stone* The actions of the George W. Bush Administration over the past several years have raised serious concerns about the appropriate level of government secrecy. The Administration has attempted to shield from public and even congressional scrutiny a broad range of controversial government decisions, including, for example, the secret creation of the National Security Agency (NSA) surveillance program, the secret authorization of the use of torture and rendition, the secret approval of the incommunicado detention of American citizens, and the secret establishment of prisons in Eastern Europe. To achieve an unprecedented level of secrecy, the Bush Administration has promulgated secret policies, narrowly interpreted the Freedom of Information Act, broadly interpreted its power to classify government documents, closed deportation proceedings from public view, redacted vast quantities of “sensitive” information from government documents and websites, fired and otherwise punished government whistleblowers, jailed journalists for refusing to disclose confidential sources, threatened to prosecute the press for publishing confidential information, and aggressively invoked both executive immunity and the state secrets doctrine.1 To some degree, the Administration’s emphasis on secrecy is an understandable consequence of the distinctive nature of the war on terror. In most circumstances, threats to the national security, like threats to the public safety, can be addressed through the conventional policies of deterrence and punishment.
    [Show full text]
  • The Justice Department's Voter Fraud Scandal
    THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT’S VOTER FRAUD SCANDAL: LESSONS Adam Gitlin and Wendy R. Weiser Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law ABOUT THE BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law is a nonpartisan law and policy institute that seeks to improve our systems of democracy and justice. We work to hold our political institutions and laws accountable to the twin American ideals of democracy and equal justice for all. The Center’s work ranges from voting rights to campaign finance reform, from ending mass incarceration to preserving Constitutional protection in the fight against terrorism. Part think tank, part advocacy group, part cutting-edge communications hub, we start with rigorous research. We craft innovative policies. And we fight for them — in Congress and the states, the courts, and in the court of public opinion. ABOUT THE BRENNAN CENTER’S DEMOCRACY PROGRAM The Brennan Center’s Democracy Program works to repair the broken systems of American democracy. We encourage broad citizen participation by promoting voting and campaign finance reform. We work to secure fair courts and to advance a First Amendment jurisprudence that puts the rights of citizens — not special interests — at the center of our democracy. We collaborate with grassroots groups, advocacy organizations, and government officials to eliminate the obstacles to an effective democracy. ABOUT THE BRENNAN CENTER’S PUBLICATIONS Red cover | Research reports offer in-depth empirical findings. Blue cover | Policy proposals offer innovative, concrete reform solutions. White cover | White papers offer a compelling analysis of a pressing legal or policy issue.
    [Show full text]