Defense Department Defies Subpoena, Blocks Testimony Of Key Sexual Assault Prevention Official
Defense Department Defies Subpoena, Blocks Testimony Of Key Sexual Assault Prevention Official
Yesterday, the House Oversight Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs, held a hearing on sexual assault in the military. During the hearing, Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) explained that “women serving in the military today are more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than be killed by enemy fire in Iraq.”
As part of their investigation, the subcommittee invited and then subpoenaed Dr. Kaye Whitley, the director of the Defense Department’s Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office, to testify. But Deputy Defense Undersecretary Michael Dominguez ordered her not to appear before the committee, claiming that the responsibility “rests with me.”
Oversight Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) responded by asking, “What is it you’re trying to hide.” Waxman then took him to task, even threatening to hold him in contempt:
WAXMAN: We subpoenaed her. You’ve denied her the opportunity to come and testify and put in a situation where we have to contemplate holding her in contempt. I don’t even know if we could hold you in contempt, because you haven’t been issued a subpoena. [...]
I don’t know if we need to subpoena the Secretary and then hold him in contempt; Mr. Chu, and hold him in contempt; you, and hold you in contempt. Those are better options to me than to hold her in contempt, when she’s put in this untenable position, when her — in the line of command — instructs her not to comply with a subpoena of the United States Congress.
Watch it:
Subcommittee Chairman Rep. John Tierney (D-MA) called Dominguez’s decision a “false notion of bravado” before kicking Dominguez out of the hearing. “We don’t want to hear from you right now. I can tell you, we’re more than a little bit upset with you…You’re dismissed,” he said.
According to the Defense Department website, Whitley’s office is the “the single point of accountability for the Department of Defense sexual assault policy.” Subcommittee Chairman Tierney explained, “Whitley has testified in Congress before, in fact, before this very subcommittee two years ago, also on sexual assault in the military.”
Dominguez said no claim of executive privileged was invoked, the department simply chose to ignore the subpoena.
Transcript:
WAXMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.The department agency SexualAssault Prevention and Response Office, known as SAPRO, that’s the agency that’s in charge of dealing with these sexualassault problems. And we asked the Department of Defense to provide Dr. Whitley, who’s the person in charge of this department, to come and testify.
And we were told that she wouldn’t be permitted to come and testify, so we subpoenaed her. And notwithstanding that, she’s still not here.
And, Mr. Dominguez, you said you’ve instructed her not to come? What is your reason for doing that? DOMINGUEZ: Sir, in consultation with the department’s leadership, I wanted to…
WAXMAN: Tell us who in the leadership. Who did you consult with in the leadership of the Department of Defense?
DOMINGUEZ: Sir, I consulted with the assistant secretary of defense for legislative affairs and general counsel of the Department of Defense. And…
WAXMAN: And they told you not to let her — she’s under your command, is that…
(CROSSTALK)
DOMINGUEZ: Yes, sir. She is my subordinate. And the point we are making here, first, is that she is available to the Congress and the members and has been up here repeatedly on her own, with her staff, unfettered, unmuzzled by us to provide whatever information she has and answer any persons questions.
In this hearing format, we wanted to ensure and make a point that Dr.
Chu, the undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, and I are the senior policy officials accountable to Secretary Gates and to the Congress for the department’s sexualassault prevention policies and programs.If you find the department’s response and prevention efforts falls short of your expectations, responsibility for that shortfall rests with me. And for that reason, sir, Dr. Whitley was directed not to appear today.
WAXMAN: That’s a ridiculous answer. What is it you’re trying to hide?
She’s the one in…DOMINGUEZ: We have nothing…
WAXMAN: Let me speak. She’s the one in charge of dealing with this problem. We wanted to hear from her. And despite a subpoena from a committee of Congress, you’ve been instructed by the secretary, undersecretary or deputy secretary in charge of legislative affairs not to allow her to come?
And you want to come because you’re in charge of this area and you can speak instead, well, do we have to subpoena the secretary to get people in the department to come before us?
We subpoenaed her. You’ve denied her the opportunity to come and testify and put in a situation where we have to contemplate holding her in contempt. I don’t even know if we could hold you in contempt, because you haven’t been issued a subpoena.
Mr. Chairman, the Department of Defense has a history of covering up sexual offense problems. We all remember Tailhook and the scandal and how the military tried to cover that up. And I don’t know what you’re trying to cover up here, but we’re not going to allow it. We’re going to talk further as to what recourse we have.
I don’t know if we need to subpoena the secretary and then hold him in contempt, Mr. Chu, would hold him in contempt, you, and hold you in contempt. Those are better options to me than to hold her in contempt, when she’s put in this untenable position, when her — in the line of command — instructs her not to comply with a subpoena of the United States Congress.
I don’t know who you think elected you to defy the Congress of the United States. We’re an independent branch of government.
Mr. Chairman, I’m going to talk to you and to Mr. Shays and Mr. Davis about what we do next, but this is an unacceptable, absolutely unacceptable position for the department to take. And we are not going to let it stand.
TIERNEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shays?
SHAYS: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the full chairman of the committee.
Mr. Waxman has the authority solely to issue a subpoena without the approval of any member here and he has every right to issue it at any time.
But in this case, you have the chairman of the full committee, the ranking member of the full committee, the chairman of the subcommittee, and the ranking member of the subcommittee, which is me, all in support. And I will cooperate any way whatsoever to get Ms.
Whitley here.And I would ask Mr. Dominguez to reconsider his very foolish decision and encourage her to come. And if not, we will get her here some other way.
DOMINGUEZ: Sir, I do want to say that…
TIERNEY: No, we don’t want to hear from you right now, Mr. Dominguez.
Let me tell you, we’re more than a little bit upset with you. And whatever this false notion of bravado or whatever, of thinking you’re covering up for something or for Dr. Whitley — is she in the room today?DOMINGUEZ: No, sir.
TIERNEY: She’s not even in the building?
DOMINGUEZ: She’s not, sir.
WAXMAN: Mr. Chairman — who’s here to advise you on the details of that office and what they’ve done?
DOMINGUEZ: I know the details of that office and what they’ve done, sir. TIERNEY: Well, let me tell you something, Mr. Dominguez: We decide who we want to have for witnesses at this hearing. We decide who are the people that are going to give us factual testimony and the ones that we want to hear from when we’re investigating or having a hearing.
So for now, Mr. Dominguez, you’re dismissed.
DOMINGUEZ: Thank you, sir.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
“the department simply chose to ignore the subpoena…”
Doesn’t matter – the House Oversight Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs won’t do anything about it.
August 1st, 2008 at 1:41 pmThey might do something about it, or they will at least try. The Republicans were pissed at this guy too. Watch the video.
Also check out our take from yesterday at BuzzFlash: http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/alerts/445
August 1st, 2008 at 1:45 pm.
… because in America, subpeonas can be ignored.
… because in America, the Rule of Law is no more.
… because in America, I can be a war criminal and be president.
.
August 1st, 2008 at 1:46 pmAnd they are defaming gays over military service. Maybe heteros need a don’t ask don’t tell policy. Maybe heteros are too dangerous to serve in the military.
August 1st, 2008 at 1:47 pmI am so pissed at this horrible regime we are under! Come on Dems……get off of your asses and subpoena her!
August 1st, 2008 at 1:48 pmwow, another threat of contempt . . . zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
August 1st, 2008 at 1:49 pm.
Q U E S T I O N:
Why do the Republicans oppose upholding the Rule of Law?
Why do the Democrats refuse to enforce the Rule of Law?
Why does the public vote for these plutocrats who accept money to NOT uphold their Oath of Office?
.
August 1st, 2008 at 1:50 pmScofflaw’s…every damn last one of them.
¶ AIO
August 1st, 2008 at 1:52 pmHe just “chose to ignore the subpoena”…?
So, what the eff are they going to freaking DO about it??
August 1st, 2008 at 1:52 pmQuite the spectacle watching the government ham-handedly try to police itself; like watching a knife fight between siamese twins….
August 1st, 2008 at 1:53 pmDominguez needs a pink-slip in the worst way!
But, then, so does this whole ^%#^%$@ing administration!
August 1st, 2008 at 1:55 pmWaxman is a pathetic, self-serving, spineless wimp. I guess it’s time for him to write another “strongly worded” letter expressing his “concerns.” Today’s Democratic Party is as effective in stopping a criminal regime as opposition parties were in Germany in stopping the Nazi grab for complete power.
August 1st, 2008 at 1:55 pmBecause in America, Americans tolerate and condone torture!
August 1st, 2008 at 1:56 pmThe Bush gangsters have been sexually assaulting America for the last eight years.
August 1st, 2008 at 2:01 pmPFC LaVena Johnson Was Raped, Beaten, Set On Fire And Worse – Army Calls It Suicide
Go to C&L. It’s the last item on the page.
August 1st, 2008 at 2:02 pmWe subpoenaed her. You’ve denied her the opportunity to come and testify and put in a situation where we have to contemplate holding her in contempt. I don’t even know if we could hold you in contempt, because you haven’t been issued a subpoena.
I sure hope they decide they clearly can charge Dominguez with Contempt of Congress. He is asserting that HIS authority over his employee trumps the will of Congress in the pursuit of its Constitutionally mandated responsibilities.
August 1st, 2008 at 2:09 pmIt is time for the Democrats to get over their fear of a “Constitutional Crisis”. Personally, I’m itching for one!
August 1st, 2008 at 2:11 pmThis system of checks and balances isn’t very balanced. Its time for the Executive Branch to form some Congressional oversite committees, start having hearings, and issue subpoenas to the likes of Waxman.
Yes, ’cause the founders really, really wanted the Executive branch to have all the powers granted to both other branches so that things could be ‘balanced’… they just wrote the opposite in order to test the faithful…
August 1st, 2008 at 2:14 pmI realize that all administratons have issues, but in my lifetime, I have never seen stonewalling on such a scale. At what point will SOMEONE be held accountable for ANYTHING?
August 1st, 2008 at 2:15 pmPoor Dary 11/GiGi,
Just can’t handle when the Repugs are constantly being uncovered like digging up a septic tank.
Gonna REALLY hurt come January!
August 1st, 2008 at 2:16 pmCall it by its real name, “tyrant’s privilege.”
August 1st, 2008 at 2:21 pmHi Dary11:
August 1st, 2008 at 2:21 pmHow’s the eye making out.
You may have missed it earlier this mornign but I was curious if there are any “right” issues/stances you might not defend or try to mitigate and are there any “left” issues/stances you might support? Thanks as I am so curious because I really don’t think you have an idealogy so much as opposed to just a contrarian desire for negative attention
dary11 Says:
This system of checks and balances isn’t very balanced. Its time for the Executive Branch to form some Congressional oversite committees, start having hearings, and issue subpoenas to the likes of Waxman.
All the words this troll writes suggest he/she wants an imperial King lording over all of us. Why would the right siders want to destroy the rule of law? Isn’t that what we were told they were good at?
Nimrod, take your own advice and go where they have kings and ‘unitary executives’. True Americans don’t need you around anyhow. What a worthless human being.
August 1st, 2008 at 2:23 pmHug The Moon Says
August 1st, 2008 at 1:47 pm
And they are defaming gays over military service. Maybe heteros need a don’t ask don’t tell policy. Maybe heteros are too dangerous to serve in the military.
_____________________________________________________________
I concur. I served as a Navy photographer back in the 1970’s, when women made up about 7% of the armed forces (yes, I am a woman). I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been groped, felt up, and otherwise assaulted in completely inappropriate ways by my fellow heterosexual male shipmates. And it’s hard to function as a photographer when you view darkrooms and print rooms with dread because you have to work in them with others.
I have never had a lesbian grope me or take incedent liberties with me. For this reason, when people ask me how I feel about gays in the military, I have always suggested I felt less threatened by the possibility of working alongside gays than male straights.
In all fairness, there were more men who treated me with respect and as a fellow professional than there were who treated me as some sort of entitlement put there by Uncle Sam for their personal pleasure. I don’t mean to suggest that all of our males in uniform are guilty of this behavior, because I believe most are not. But there are still plenty who are, as well as a culture that tolerates this. It must stop.
August 1st, 2008 at 2:24 pmWhy not refuse to appear before Congress? Contempt of Congress seems to be the mode du jour in Washington these days. First Hastert, and now Pelosi and Company have proved themselves incapable of standing up for their so-called “equal branch of Government” for seven years, now. What’s to worry?
Mukasey’s got their back.
August 1st, 2008 at 2:26 pmCongress should start rounding up all those in this administration who behave like this. Throw them in jail and fine them each $100,000. They might be able to eliminate the whole federal deficit.
August 1st, 2008 at 2:27 pm.
Yo darryll honey peaches,
The president is not king… K?
WHY DO YOU HATE US FOR OUR WAY OF LIFE THAT YOU SUPPORT THE NOTION THAT AMERICANS ARE SUBJECT TO THE KING?
If darryll honey peaches wants a monarchy, MOVE TO ENGLAND!
.
August 1st, 2008 at 2:27 pmMissmolly,
When I was in Vietnam, one of my hootch mates observed a sexual attack on a Red Cross ‘Donut Dolly’ by a young officer. He reported it and after a few weeks, was called in by our CO and told to ‘just forget it’, ‘not worth getting anyone in trouble for, Boys will be boys’, etc”.
Found out later that our CO was told to stop the investigation, and that this assklown junior officer was a nephew of a Repug Rep. in Congress.
August 1st, 2008 at 2:31 pmdary11 Says
August 1st, 2008 at 2:03 pm
This system of checks and balances isn’t very balanced. Its time for the Executive Branch to form some Congressional oversite committees, start having hearings, and issue subpoenas to the likes of Waxman.
_________________________________________________________
Huh? You don’t figure the Executive Branch has enough power? What rampant, unchecked power is Congress exercising that needs a lid put on it?
Or do you see that ANY accountability demanded of the Dictator Branch — oops, Executive Branch — to be too much? Will you feel the same way after Obama is inaugurated?
August 1st, 2008 at 2:31 pmCongress needs its own law enforcement. I’m sure there are some Patriotic Vets, highly trained that are capable and more than willing to round up these criminals that have infested the Administrative branch.
August 1st, 2008 at 2:40 pmHEY PELOSI, REID, WAXMAN—
HOW BAD DOES IT HAVE TO GET?
HOW MANY SUBPOENA’S WILL YOU ALLOW TO BE IGNORED BEFORE YOU DECIDE TO PRESERVE, PROTECT, & DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION?
HOW LONG WILL YOU ALLOW THE WASTE, FRAUD, & ABUSE OF GW BOGUS & THE LIE FACTORY TO CONTINUE?
(Warrantless wiretapping, torture, lying Congress & America into an illegal war, politicizing the Justice Dept., outing a covert CIA Agent- TREASON FOR GOD SAKE!)
HOW ENABLING/COMPLICIT ARE YOU WILLING TO APPEAR, BEFORE YOU JEOPARDIZE THE NEXT ELECTION?
(You have ‘the goods’ Nancy’ why won’t you act?)
DO YOU WANT A THIRD BUSH TERM?
WHEN WILL YOU SHOW US CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN?
(How about that ‘Truman Commission’?)
————————————
August 1st, 2008 at 2:45 pmOBAMA, OH-EIGHT, OR ELSE!!!
jb Says:
Congress needs its own law enforcement. I’m sure there are some Patriotic Vets, highly trained that are capable and more than willing to round up these criminals that have infested the Administrative branch.
I fully agree. Or maybe we could use the Border Patrol, as I feel the AssKlown deviants that are dissing the Legislative Branch and ignoring the Rule of Law are a lot more dangerous to this country than illegal farm workers crossing the border.
August 1st, 2008 at 2:56 pmWaxman might explore 18 USC 1512(b), which makes it a crime to use intimidation or threats to prevent another person from testifying before Congress. Of course, it’s the Justice Department that decides whether to bring federal criminal charges, so he probably need not hold his breath.
August 1st, 2008 at 3:06 pmAnother “unintended” side effect of the war. The culture of sexual assault in the military is being exposed.
If the admin only didn’t go to war, the military could have kept raping it’s own women, largely undetected.
Heckuva job!
August 1st, 2008 at 3:13 pmThe 110th congress may well go down as the most corrupt in history for the simple fact that they have ignored these up front in your face criminals to destroy the Constitution of the United States and by virtue of this they are criminals themselves.
August 1st, 2008 at 3:20 pmEvery time I see the word “defy” applied to Bushco, I become more concerned it’s going to take an angry mob to remove these criminals from the halls of power.
August 1st, 2008 at 3:20 pmWell, it’s now Monkey See, Monkey Do.
If it’s good enough for the President and his current and former staff, then it’s good enough for the DoD. After all, who’s going to do anything about it?
DO NOTHING CONGRESS, this is the bed you’ve made. Now the liars can keep lying and giving you the middle-finger salute and you’ve got to take it. Conyers, Pelosi, all of ya.. it’s your fault. And we the people, we the female troops, we all of us get to suffer as a result.
We don’t live in America anymore.
August 1st, 2008 at 3:23 pmOBAMA, OH-EIGHT, OR ELSE!!!
August 1st, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Or ELSE, what, big talker?
You gonna grab your .22 (long rifle) and go after ‘em?
Gonna recruit a few more of us witn .22s, too, to go get ‘em?
jeezis-phuque, you tough guys amuse the piss outta me…
yes, there should be a million people surrounding the ShiteHouse with pitchforks and torches, tar and feathers.
a hundred thousand would do the trick probably…
but they’d hafta stay there, not be moved by firehoses, dogs, cops with horses, everything…and that would inevitably get bloody…
which is the ONLY anything in this poor, god-blighted land will ever or has ever changed.
August 1st, 2008 at 3:25 pmIf the admin only didn’t go to war, the military could have kept raping it’s own women, largely undetected.
Heckuva job!
This has been a problem of epidemic proportions from the very first time women were encouraged to enlist. And it has been systematically ignored, denied, and covered-up for 40 years at least. It won’t go away until every perp is id’d, tried, convicted, and dishonorably discharged…
August 1st, 2008 at 3:35 pmWhich is never gonna happen…
Why should this department pay any attention to a congressional subpoena? The Democrats have made it very clear that anyone in the Bush Administration can ignore a subpoena without suffering any consequences.
August 1st, 2008 at 3:55 pmmisshusseinmolly Says:
dary11 Says
Will you feel the same way after Obama is inaugurated?
No, once Obama is inaugurated they will go back to demanding the separation of the branches of the government. They will also scream bloody murder if Obama makes any misstep and start yelling for him to be impeached. The problem is, they have set the stage for Obama to be able to do just about anything he wants. If they complain, all he has to do is to say, “why was it OK for Bush to do it but not for me to do it”. Fortunately Obama won’t be that kind of leader. But, it would be kind of fun watching him if he chose to do it.
August 1st, 2008 at 4:02 pmForTruth Says:
Another “unintended” side effect of the war. The culture of sexual assault in the military is being exposed.
If the admin only didn’t go to war, the military could have kept raping it’s own women, largely undetected.
Heckuva job!
Anyone else remember the “Tailhook” scandal of Naval Aviators a while back, in the early 90’s? Guess who was a Naval Aviator! And had attended those drunken brawls his ownself in prior years. I wonder what went on when he was there? Maybe McCindy was one of the ‘guests of honor’?
August 1st, 2008 at 7:18 pmThat man just disgraced his uniform today. Outrageous.
August 1st, 2008 at 7:31 pmDuring the hearing, Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) explained that “women serving in the military today are more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than be killed by enemy fire in Iraq.”
According to John McCain, this is just further proof that the surge is, indeed, working.
August 1st, 2008 at 8:21 pmJust saw a news item – the military has indicated that as a response, they are going to educate their folks.
I’m not quite sure how to take this. Does this mean educate the brass to follow up on complaints – and as they don’t know already, what does this say about the brass ?
Does this mean to educate the soldiers that rape is bad ? What does this say about the troops ?
The only reason I temper my comments is that from the statistics I’ve seen, I’m having a lot of trouble teasing out physical from harassment, etc. Not that any of these are “good” but, of course, there is a gradation of bad.
August 2nd, 2008 at 8:21 pm