Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bentway who wrote (543613)	1/13/2010 5:10:15 PM
From: longnshort	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576901

Justice rebuffs Panthers subpoenaRate this story By Jerry Seper The Justice Department refused Tuesday to turn over most of the information and documents sought by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights explaining why a civil complaint was dismissed against members of the New Black Panther Party who disrupted a Philadelphia polling place in the November 2008 elections. In a 38-page response, the department objected — except for a few court records, letters and procedural documents — to "each and every" question and document request submitted by the commission, saying the subpoenas violated existing executive orders, privacy and privilege concerns, and were burdensome, vague and ambiguous. The lengthy response, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Times, also said the requested information and documents were protected by the attorney-client privilege or were not subject to disclosure because they included attorney or law enforcement work products. The department also refused to release any information about an investigation of the New Black Panther Party case by its office of professional responsibility, saying the ongoing review was privileged information or was covered by the Privacy Act. In an accompanying letter to the commission, Joseph H. Hunt, director of the Justice Department's Federal Programs Branch, which oversees litigation matters, said the department is "constrained by the need to protect against disclosures that would harm its deliberative processes or that otherwise would undermine its ability to carry out its mission." Mr. Hunt added that the department "continues to evaluate whether it can provide further response consistent with the need to protect privileged information and may supplement this response at a later date." He did not elaborate. But Commissioner Todd Gaziano, an independent appointed by the House, questioned the department's refusal to turn over the bulk of the requested information and documents. "The department offered no arguments as to their legal position in denying the requests," Mr. Gaziano said during an interview Tuesday. "This is just more delay, more stonewalling and without any justification. "The department has no privilege in this matter other than executive privilege, and if the president wants to assert it, he should do so," he said. The Civil Rights Commission, frustrated by the Justice Department's failure to explain the dismissal despite repeated written requests for information, issued subpoenas on Dec. 9 demanding records showing how the case was handled. washingtontimes.com

To: bentway who wrote (543613)	1/13/2010 5:11:45 PM
From: longnshort	Respond to of 1576901

EDITORIAL: Menacing turn in Black Panther caseRate this story By THE WASHINGTON TIMES The Justice Department told the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights to drop dead yesterday. The growing controversy is over a voter-intimidation case involving the radical New Black Panther Party and why Justice is carrying water for the villains. The department's intransigence should frighten Congress because Justice is asserting broad privileges that undermine congressional authority to oversee government's executive branch. That's why the timing is propitious today for the House Judiciary Committee to consider, and approve, a resolution of inquiry introduced by Rep. Frank Wolf, Virginia Republican. The Wolf resolution would direct Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. to "transmit to the House of Representatives, not later than 14 days after the date of adoption of this resolution, copies of any document, memo or correspondence of the Department of Justice with regard to United States v. New Black Panther Party." Democrats tempted to kill this resolution today on a party-line vote should understand that they would be setting a precedent with ramifications far beyond this case. The constitutional balance of powers would be fundamentally shifted away from Congress to an unaccountable executive, and future corruption easily could go unchecked. The Commission on Civil Rights, acting according to explicit statutory authority to subpoena executive departments, demanded that Justice answer 49 detailed questions, with accompanying document requests. In yesterday's response, the department wrote that on the basis of seven distinct claimed "privileges," it objects "to each and every Interrogatory and Document Request." The cover letter to the commission from Justice official Joseph H. Hunt asserts a broader need to "protect against disclosures that would ... undermine its ability to carry out its mission." Not even President Nixon at the nadir of Watergate asserted such a broad privilege against outside review. Sustaining such a privilege would let an executive agency assert that anything it self-defines as its "mission" would be immune from scrutiny. That way lies tyranny. The Washington Times asked Michael Carvin, deputy assistant attorney general for both the Civil Rights Division and the Office of Legal Counsel under President Reagan, to review the Department of Justice's privilege assertions. His response was scathing. "They are relying on privileges that the Office of Legal Counsel says do not exist," Mr. Carvin asserted. "There is no privilege, for instance, saying that the Justice Department will not identify personnel working on the case. ... Generally, a number of these privileges [are ones] I've literally never heard of." Mr. Carvin specifically noted, contrary to Justice claims, "Normally there is no general attorney-client privilege unless you are dealing with the president. So a claim would have to come under the 'work product' or 'deliberative process' exemption. But 'work product' is very narrow, and the deliberative-process privilege is moot ... once the case closes. This is especially true when the [request for the information] does not involve litigants but instead an agency with statutory responsibilities concerning civil rights." The Justice Department is out of control. If this power grab doesn't trigger a congressional investigation, Congress is admitting it is no more than a body of lapdogs, fetching slippers for their executive masters.