Can someone tell me what information could reasonably be withheld under executive privilege.....?

Question

..regarding the investigation into the Pat Tillman friendly fire cover up?

Seriously. What could be so earth shakingly secret that releasing it to the Congress would harm the "war" on terror or US interests? Doesn't this strain credulity more than a little?

Read the article first before replying please. Answers within the bounds of reason and sanity appreciated.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070713/ap_on_re_us/tillman_friendly_fire

Answer 1

Any conversations with the President, or any conversations by senior aide determining what should be said to the President.

Only conversations with the President, or in direct preparation for a report to the President, are protected by Executive Privilege. That's what the law says.

Bush doesn't care what the law says. He knows that by throwing up the "executive privilege" roadblock, he can effectively stall any investigation for months, if not until the end of his term.

That being said, it is possible that he engaged in conversation with aides on the best way to use the Tillman death to spin the news of the Iraq conflict. Such conversations would fall within the scope of Executive Privilege.

But he can't have it both ways. Either he was involved in deciding what got told to whom, and was involved in coming up with the cover story (in which case Executive Privilege would apply) or he was not involved (in which case it wouldn't). He can't claim to not be involved and then claim privilege applies.

Answer 2

You're right, the cover-up of the Pat Tillman incident is just one example of the current Administration's tendancy toward secrecy and deliberate mis-statements of fact. If they're willing to lie about Tillman, where do they draw the line?
Executive privilege has very strict limits, and all activities of the White House are carried out in service to the American people. ALL documents and activities of the Executive Branch are subject to review by Congress and the American people. If you have any doubt about this Google "Watergate" and "Richard M Nixon."

Answer 3

In US vs Nixon, the Supreme Court said that "the valid need for protection of communications between high Government officials and those who advise and assist them in the performance of their manifold duties" was a necessity to the office because human experience teaches that those who expect public dissemination of their remarks may well temper candor with a concern for appearances and for their own interests to the detriment of the decisionmaking process."

But they also said that the rule was not absolute. "To read the Article II powers of the President as providing an absolute privilege as against a subpoena essential to enforcement of criminal statutes on no more than a generalized claim of the public interest in confidentiality of nonmilitary and nondiplomatic discussions would upset the constitutional balance of 'a workable government' and gravely impair the role of the courts under Article III."

So unless the information that is sought is a military or diplomatic secret, or might damage military or diplomatic affairs, there should be no privilidge. So Harriet Miers should be required to testify. (Federal prosecutors aren't a military or diplomatic asset.)

I bet Bush's thinking goes like this. "If there is a military reason, then I can resist the subpoena. Well, if I give in to it, I'll be embarrassed, and I'm the Commander in Chief, and if I get embarrassed, I can't do my job as well. So there, that's a military reason."

Answer 4

You used a key word in your question: "reasonably." The Tillman case is a HUGE embarrassment to the Pentagon, this presidency, the Department of the Army, and even America. The press LIVES for scandal and they are on the trail. Congress LIVES to exploit such incidence for their own gains. So, those entities that have egg on their faces have circled the wagons and are using any ploy they can to make the Tillman case ... just go away. PLEASE!

It's easy for us to say, just turn over the damned documents! But these are bureaucratic machines! They don't work that way! Coverup is a part of their makeup. So is obfuscation. So, it is absolutely reasonable within that realm for them to TRY such tactics. That's why we have a judicial branch. They won't ask your question, is this reasonable? No, they ask another question: Is it LEGAL? Stay tuned for the answer.

Answer 5

Everything in this administration is secret. This is the most secretive government since Nixon and even more corrupt than Nixon as well. I never thought it would be possible that we would get an even more corrupt anti democratic government than Nixon's but now we do. There are no reasons that are sane or within the bounds of reason that can justify this withholding of information or alot of other information that this administration has been covering up. It's just that, another coverup. Unfortunately, fascism is winning.

Answer 6

Its more a question of protecting certain people that made bad decisions rather than some scary secret. Bush is famous for protecting everyone under him regardless of how unsound their judgement. I think in his mind its the christian thing to do protect the weak. He hoping for some karmic effects hes hoping it will help when the true magnitude of his incompetence is brought to light in 20-30 yrs.

Answer 7

it might have involved something or nothing that would be unreasonable to release. that's the risk with executive privilege: you can't know. but i also know that executive privilege was established for good reasons, and the 'cure' would be worse than the 'disease'.

Answer 8

I think stuff like when Clinton had conversations with Denise Rich about how much it was going to cost to get the pardon for Marc Rich.

Answer 9

Executive Privilege is exactally what it implies.
Can't fight it, so you live with it.