A White House Wrapped in Secrecy

"There is no legitimate argument for withholding the requested materials from this Committee."

Due to the Comey rebellion, the program was changed after two years, and in January it was brought under the auspices of the surveillance court. But, Leahy writes: "This Committee would be abdicating its responsibility if it failed to examine Executive Branch actions simply because we are told they have stopped. We have been given no assurance that these activities, or similar ones, will not resume based on the same or similar legal arguments. This Committee must conduct oversight to consider whether it wishes to act, through legislation or otherwise, to prevent such recurrence."

For more on Bush's blocking of the internal Justice Department investigation, see my July 19, 2006, column: Cover-Up Exposed? For more on the program being put under court supervision, see my Jan. 18 column, A Surrender or a Feint? For more on Comey's testimony, see my May 16 column, High Drama -- and High Crimes? The ACLU released a statement announcing: "This is the beginning of the end of this administration riding roughshod over our Constitution."

The Coverage

Charlie Savage writes in the Boston Globe that "only three of the nine Republicans on the committee voted against authorizing the subpoenas, which were approved by a 13-to-3 vote. The committee, under both Republican and Democratic leadership, has been seeking information about the program and questioning its legality since The New York Times revealed its existence in December 2005. . . .

"Congress gave administration officials until July 18 to comply with its demand for information. If the administration refuses , the committee and then full Senate would have to vote on whether to cite the officials for criminal contempt, which could lead to a lengthy battle over executive privilege and the constitutional separation of powers.

"Since 1975, according to the Congressional Research Service, 10 senior executive branch officials have been cited for contempt for failing to produce subpoenaed documents. In all 10 instances, however, the executive branch worked out a deal that satisfied Congress before any criminal proceedings were initiated."

Savage also notes: "A 1978 statute makes it a felony to conduct such surveillance without a warrant, but the president's legal team secretly asserted that his wartime powers include an unwritten right to bypass such laws at his own discretion. Cheney and his counsel, David Addington , were the leading proponents of the program and the controversial legal theory supporting it, former administration lawyers have said."

James Risen writes in the New York Times: "Before Mr. Comey's testimony, the White House had largely been able to fend off aggressive oversight of the N.S.A. wiretapping since it was first disclosed in December 2005. The Republican-controlled Congress held hearings last year, and even considered legislative proposals to curb the scope of the eavesdropping. But Mr. Cheney repeatedly pressured Republican Congressional leaders to pull back. . . .

"When the Democrats won the 2006 midterm elections, many observers predicted that the N.S.A. program -- which a federal judge declared unconstitutional -- would be one of the first Bush administration operations to undergo new scrutiny. But in January, the administration announced that it was placing the program under the legal framework of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a move it had previously refused to consider.

"The Democrats have largely focused on objections to the Iraq war in their first months in power, and have appeared reluctant to take aggressive steps to challenge policies on harsh interrogation practices, secret Central Intelligence Agency prisons and domestic wiretapping for fear of being labeled soft on terrorism.

"For instance, at a confirmation hearing on June 19 for John A. Rizzo as general counsel of the C.I.A., no member of the Senate Intelligence Committee directly challenged the agency's secret detention or harsh interrogation practices."

Michael A. Fletcher writes in The Washington Post: "The White House offered no word on whether it will turn over the documents by the July 18 deadline. 'We're aware of the committee's action, and will respond appropriately,' spokesman Tony Fratto said. 'It's unfortunate that congressional Democrats continue to choose the route of confrontation.'"