Congress Issues First Obama Administration Subpoena
[Guest post by DRJ]
Last week, Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman Joe Lieberman and ranking minority member Senator Susan Collins threatened to issue a subpoena unless the Obama Administration released information about the Fort Hood shootings. This week they issued the subpoena, the first of the Obama Administration’s tenure:
“It’s rare for Congress to subpoena an administration controlled by the same party and, in doing so, Lieberman followed through on a threat he made last week. The senator, an Independent who caucuses with Democrats, has increasingly become a thorn in the side of the administration.
He has accused the administration of stalling a congressional probe into the November shootings at Fort Hood, Texas, saying the departments of Defense and Justice have turned down four requests for documents over the course of five months.
Last week Lieberman said he would take the White House to court over the issue of whether to share information about the murders, allegedly committed by Maj. Nidal Hasan.
“We regret there was no change in position,” Lieberman said on a conference call with reporters. “We have signed and are serving subpoenas today.”
Acting as chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Lieberman issued the subpoenas after a noon deadline came and went with no resolution. The subpoenas were issued to Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Attorney General Eric Holder.In a letter accompanying the subpoenas, Lieberman and Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), the committee’s ranking member, gave the administration until 10 a.m. on Monday, April 26 to comply.”
Both the Pentagon and the DOJ have balked at responding to Lieberman’s request, although it’s not clear if they object for the same reasons:
“The Pentagon has been concerned that releasing the information requested by Lieberman’s committee would jeopardize the integrity of the military justice process and the criminal prosecution of Hasan.
Instead, senior Pentagon legal experts indicated that the Department of Defense has tried to offer the panel alternatives, particularly with regard to Hasan’s personnel file and potential witnesses in his trial. Pentagon officials said they tried to provide the committee with the names of people in the chain of command, who would not be potential witnesses, but would have pertinent information. The panel rejected that.”
Basically, Lieberman is looking at the Hasan shooting as terrorism and a matter for Congressional review, while the Obama Administration treats it as a criminal matter. [EDIT: Lieberman is concerned that the initial Pentagon report doesn’t even mention the possibility that Hasan could be an Islamic terrorist.] Since Hasan will apparently be tried before a military tribunal, the Pentagon is looking for a middle ground that permits Congressional review of a pending military proceeding. It’s a difficult balancing act.
If the Administration persists in bringing terrorists into the United States to be tried in civilian courts, won’t it be even harder to find a balance that satisfies criminal courts and Congressional oversight?
— DRJ
In a civilian judicial process, resistance to releasing information to the press is usually posed in terms of “poisoning the potential jury pool”. I don’t see how this is a consideration when dealing with military courts, so just what would be jeopardized by information released (or testimony given) to the HS commitee?
JSinAZ (7f265c) — 4/19/2010 @ 9:11 pmi say again:”why hasn’t the court martial already taken place, or the process at least been initiated?”
>p>to my mind, there is no good reason for this ridiculous delay, and the justice due for the murder of fourteen Americans at the hands of a islamic terrorist is apparently being deliberately delayed by the Obama regime for reasons which are suspect until explained.
good on the Senator for pushing forward: its nice to see a blind pig find an edible acorn once in awhile.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 4/19/2010 @ 9:55 pmTime and again I see these news articles which talk about how Hasan “allegedly” gunned down people at Fort Hood. Allegedly? Okay, I realize he hasn’t been formerly convicted, but come ON! Like there weren’t a hundred witnesses? Like he wasn’t caught in the act, and shot because of it?
“Allegedly” needs to be dropped from the vernacular in this case. It’s not like he’s some suspected killer that cops just don’t have enough evidence to really put away. Sheesh.
Steve B (5eacf6) — 4/19/2010 @ 10:53 pmSteve B, I’d rather see “accused” than “alleged”. Semantics? Yeah. But as long as there’s a sharp defense attorney still breathing, you’ll never see it without “alleged”. We’re talking “poisoning the jury pool” — even in a military trial.
either orr (7cffdd) — 4/20/2010 @ 5:37 amNonsense! There’s no accused or alleged about it. The cold fact is that Hasan did it, and everyone knows it. Pussyfooting around or pretending otherwise is dishonesty in service to pretense.
ropelight (36edc7) — 4/20/2010 @ 6:02 amAs redc1c4 points out, this pieced of s*** is a member of the military; therefore, the question of military or civilian criminal proceeding is idiotic.
Courtmartial, trial for treason, military tribunal, act of war against the United States military. The pussyfooting based on the question of whether he was “acting under the orders of a foreign government” is just another dodge.
Icy Texan (484da8) — 4/20/2010 @ 7:58 amI expect Obama to ignore the subpoena. IIRC, Committee subpoenas are enforceable via contempt citations if and only if the entire Senate votes to make them so. Which won’t happen.
Kevin Murphy (5ae73e) — 4/20/2010 @ 8:42 amWhy do the media continue to refer to Hasan as the “alleged” shooter, perpetrator, terrorist, (fill in the blank)? It cannot at this point be alleged that he committed the crime. There were multiple eye witnesses. His defense cannot argue that he didn’t commit the crime, they can only hope to offer a mitigating explanation for why he committed the crime. So why does his crime continue to be referred to as alleged?
PRM (310ebf) — 4/20/2010 @ 10:59 am