Actually, Iran disputed a lot of stuff that the U.S. believed had already been delivered. The U.S. sold off much of what had not been delivered to other buyers or bought it for the U.S. military, and credited Iran’s account. But the $400 million left in it was disputed until the U.S. lost case.

Cat comfortably surveying surrounds from the crow’s nest of his kitty tree.

My parents’ cat Joey, master of all he surveys

I had no idea there was that much in frozen Iranian assets available—this must include assets frozen in the EU? Of course, OFAC hasn’t filed the required report in years accounting for “terrorist assets.”

Claims that Congress can’t declassify were abandoned, but Ford scuttled publication of the Pike report by getting the Rules Committee to report a resolution permitting publication only if Ford agreed, The House adopted it. The report was not published.

It was promptly leaked to the Village Voice.

Syria—The movement of Syrian troops and Egyptian military readiness are Considered to be coincidental and not designed to lead to major hostilities. DIA Intelligence Summary, October 3, 1973. Egypt.—The exercise and alert activities under way in Egypt may be on a somewhat larger scale and more realistic than previous exercises, not appear to be preparing for a military offensive against Israel. Central Intelligence Bulletin, October 5, 1973.

Egyt.-The current, large-scale mobilization exercise may be an effort to soothe internal problems as much as to improve military capabilities. Mobilization of some personnel, increased readiness of isolated units, and greater communication security are all assessed as parts of the exercise routine there are still no military or political indicators of Egyptian intentions or preparations to resume , October 6, 1973. 1 fores wiph TurnaB the eracis and the Arabshee becoming increasingly concerned about the military activities of the other, although neither side appears to be bent on initiating hostilities***. For Fgypt a military initiative makes little sense at this critical juncture * * *. Another round of hostilities would almost certainly destroy Sadat's painstaking efforts to invigorate the economy and would run counter to his current efforts to build a united Arab political front, particularly among the less militant; oil-rich states. For the Syrian president, a military adventure now would be suicidal. Central Intelligence Bulletin, October evidence of a major, coordinated Egyptian/Syrian offensive across the Canal and in the Golan Heights area. Rather, the weight of evidence indicated an action-reaction situation here a series of responses by each side to perceived threats Costedes are apparenty areeroforestial on confronts pobe carrent • It is possible that the Egyptians or Syrians, particularly the latter, may have been preparing a raid or other small-scale action. Special Report of the Watch Committee October 6, 1970. [NOTE,-Asterisks denote omitted material in original post mortem analysis.]

(Sorry I can’t clean up the alt text)

Not all of this, the hearings revealed four words of this were top secret, but not which four. It is alluded to that they’re in the first paragraph

“I was disappointed in the manner in which that committee handled some of this most highly classified material …some of that material is specifically protected by law, and if a private citizen were to release [it, it’d be] a serious criminal offense.”

Goodness. Well, here it is->

Back to the Pike Committee. What information did it release? It must have done especially grave damage. President Ford told reporters,—>

CRS attacked again on wiretap bias - UPI.com Another House GOP committee chair has joined criticism of the Congressional Research Service for its legal analysis of the administration's program of warrantless counter-terrorist electronic surveill...

To think he was the go-to “constitutional scholar” for H Jud.

[reliving the Eastman v. uh, me battle from a decade ago]

He was so … respectful of Congress’s role during the couple hearings from that time. Was it an act to shield the bombast, or the other way around?

But the chamber can override his objections. Who made this suggestion, as OLC Assistant Attorney General, you’re dying to know? Are you sitting down? (Waiting for you to sit)
It was none other than

Antonin Scalia

A few months later at a Senate hearing discussing congressional authority to access and disclose classified information, OLC did not repeat DOJ’s earlier claims, but suggested the outlines for the procedures the intel committees now have, which gives the President an opportunity to object->

Chairman Pike explained how the Constitution expressly provides each chamber of Congress the discretion to determine which records of its proceedings should be kept secret. And then excoriated the executive branch witnesses for divulging what was discussed in executive session the previous day.

STATEMENT OF REX E. LEE, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CIVIL DIVISION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE My name is Rex E. Lee. I am an Assistant Attorney General, and I appear this morning on behalf of the Executive Branch. We understand that this Committee yesterday, acting in executive session and over the protests of representatives of the Department of State, the Department of Defense and the Central Intelligence Agency, voted to declassify and release to the public, and did in fact subsequently make available to the public materials properly classified under law. These materials had been provided to the committee as classified documents pursuant to its requests. The materials released by the Select Committee concerned, among other things, certain foreign communication intelligence activities of the United States Government. The Committee Chairman also advised the representatives of State, Defense, and the CIA that it was his position that the Select Committee possessed the inherent right to declassify any materials classified by the Executive Branch and that the Select Committee would continue to exercise that asserted inherent right in its sole discretion. We object strongly to the unilateral and unprecedented action of the Committee in declassifying sensitive information furnished to the Committee by the Executive Branch. The successful and efficient conduct of the work of several congressional committees depnds upon the recipt by those committees of classified information, which has consistently been delivered to those committees on the understanding that the integrity of the classification would be maintained. The action of this Committee yesterday' stands as a sharp departure from the traditional manner of handling classified information to accommodate the respective constitutional responsibilities of the Executive and Legislative branches.

In addition, the release of classified information such as the Committee has done, and has stated it will continue to do, causes serious and irreparable harm to the national security and foreign relations of the United States. Finally, the Committee's action is contrary to the express policies of Congress concerning the handling of classified information. I refer to the Case Act (1 U.S.C. Sect. 112b) and the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. Sect. 552). … The constitutional question raised by the Committee's action is a most serious.one. The Executive Branch has endeavored, In a spirit of comity and cooperation, to work with the Select Committee on Intelligence, but it cannot accept this unprecedented action, which in our view is an unconstitutional act. The Congress is vested with the powers to legislate and to oversee the administration of the laws passed by it, but this action of the Committee is not a legislative act nor is it oversight. It is a vote by a single Committee to review and overturn an Executive act and, therefore, beyond any power vested in it. In view of the position expressed by the Committee to our representatives yesterday, the President's responsibilities for the national security and foreign relations of the United States leave him no alternative but to request the immediate return of all classified materials heretofore provided by any department or agency of the Executive Brinch and direct all departments And agencies of the Executive Branch respectfully to decline to provide the Select Committee with classified materials including testimony and interviews which disclose such materials, until the Committee satisfactorily alters its position. We regret the Committee's action and the consequent necessity for this response. We would prefer the relationship of constitutional accommodation and cooperation that exists between the Executive Branch and other congressional committees.

DOJ statement in alt text

Here’s the statement the DOJ lawyer gave, or rather, tried to. (It’s not very legible, so I’ll post a screenshot with alt text next post)

By coincidence, I was doing research on the Pike Committee last night, and came across a hearing in which Chairman Pike completely eviscerated a hapless DOJ attorney who attempted to tell him Congress has no authority to release classified information.

ugh, *they’re*

Are you aware of government documents that the public really ought to see, but can’t on account of their classified? You, too, can get them released. Here’s how! 👇
(P.S. Good luck)

Declassification explainer👇

Is to discuss the matters in committee in executive (closed) session, in which case the committee can vote to release the record of proceedings to the public. Which never happens, and would be tough to swing in the minority.

Hello? Yes, S&D covers legislative activities, but does not protect members from liability for communications outside congressional duties. He could read the letter into the record and be immune, but that would violate Senate rules so he could face discipline. Another possibility->

More likely it’s sarcasm.

-/Although if they paid in crypto currency, I’m not sure if the ordinary jurisdictional basis would be there.

Hmmm, maybe if they paid Iran’s toll they can be subject to civil forfeiture for an IEEPA violation.

I mean, that was the challenge brought in the Prize Cases, that Congress hadn’t declared war. The ship owners lost that one, of course, but this would be readily distinguishable. On the other hand, it could be an opportunity for courts to expand Art. II power exponentially.

If I play my cards right, maybe I can monetize my somewhat arcane knowledge of letters of marque.

If this becomes an actual blockade, meaning enforced, a court may have the opportunity to hear a challenge to the legality of the war. The owner of a vessel captured by the Navy for running the blockade could assert the lack of authorization prevents its condemnation as prize, right?

😞 Pointing out the existence of a relevant statute does not imply an expectation that it will be followed.

I keep wondering whether Milo Minderbinder is involved somehow in advising the U.S.’ approach to armed conflict.

Believe it or not, there are statutes governing the capture of vessels and their condemnation as prize by the appropriate court. The proceeds of any cargo sold off goes into the Treasury, 10 USC §8863.

On the other hand, I don’t see anything about charging fees for a license to traverse a blockade

All about blockades
bsky.app/profile/jnkl...