I'm pretty dissapointed that no one is raising much of a fuss over the mass refusal of "troopergate" figures in Alaska to comply with legally issued subpoenas from the legislature. They aren't legally attempting to quash them, so far as I can tell, but are merely asserting that since they don't feel the investigation, legally constituted or not, is fair, they don't have to show up if they don't want to.

Subpoenas are legal orders that COMPEL a person, under penalty of law (that's what the latin sub pena means -- under penalty), to appear before a court or legislative body. There are legal steps one can take to have a subpoena quashed, or priviliges one can assert to refuse to answer questions once in front of the issuer, but "I disagree so I won't show up" is simply not an option.

So far as I can tell, no one has put forward a legally valid reason for the "Troopergate" witnesses not to appear. Most recently, Palin's husband says he won't appear because "he feels the inquiry is illegitimate". That's fine. There may even be some potential legal remedies he could pursue. But simply saying he doesn't feel like it and not showing up is NOT thumbing one's nose at partisan opponents, it's thumbing one's nose at the rule of law itself.

Certainly, people hauled before the House Un-American Activities Committee during the McCarthy Era couldn't just boycott on the grounds that they "felt" the proceedings were partisan or unfair. Even in the case of Bush admin figures like Rove or Miers the individuals are asserting executive privilige. Watergate and Iran-Contra figures certainly complied with Congressional subpoenas. I'd be curious if anyone has any examples of Clinton associates simply refusing to appear before Ken Starr's grand jury or before Congressional committees investigating Whitewater, Travelgate, Filegate, Vince Foster, or whatever. They may have sometimes pled the Fifth or asserted exec privilige, or went to jail for contempt for refusing to answer questions even after being granted immunity, but I don't think there were cases of people simply thumbing their noses at the entire process and deciding not to bother showing up.

So, how exactly does Todd Palin get to say he won't comply because he doesn't "feel" like it? Or how does the state Atty General claim that because testifying would conflict with their "loyalty to the governor" he's directed state employees not to comply? That's sure as hell not a valid legal justification. I mean, there's the real answer that it's because Palin won't make the state troopers enforce a warrant from the legislature. But a reason that has any legality to it?

Bonus points if you can explain why Webster Hubbel or John Huang could NOT have used the same "it feels partisan" justification to simply not show up when subpoenaed by Rep. Dan Burton's committee.