International Herald Tribune Editorial - Overprivileged executive

International Herald Tribune Editorial - Overprivileged executive
Copyright by The International Herald Tribune
Published: July 11, 2007


It is hardly news that top officials in the current Justice Department flout the law and make false statements to Congress, but the latest instance may be the most egregious. When Attorney General Alberto Gonzales wanted the Patriot Act renewed in the spring of 2005, he told the Senate, "There has not been one verified case of civil liberties abuse." But The Washington Post reported Tuesday that just six days earlier, the FBI had sent Gonzales a report saying that it had obtained personal information it should not have.

This is hardly the first time Gonzales has played so loose with the facts. In the U.S. attorneys scandal - the controversy over the political purge of nine top prosecutors - Gonzales and his aides have twisted the truth beyond recognition.

Congress needs to know all that has gone on at the Justice Department. But President George W. Bush is blocking the truth, invoking executive privilege to prevent Harriet Miers, the former White House counsel, and Sara Taylor, a former top aide to Karl Rove, from telling Congress what they know about the purge of federal prosecutors.

Bush's claim is baseless. Executive privilege, which is not mentioned in the Constitution, is a judge-made right of limited scope, intended to create a sphere of privacy around the president so that he can have honest discussions with his advisers. The White House has insisted throughout the scandal that Bush - and even Gonzales - was not in the loop about the firings. If that is the case, the privilege should not apply.

Even if Bush was directly involved, Miers and Taylor would have no right to withhold their testimony. The Supreme Court made clear in the Watergate tapes case that the privilege does not apply if a president's privacy interests are outweighed by the need to investigate possible criminal activity.