It's assumed the FBI can do this...

GG, seems to me one of the most revealing aspects of all this, and the right's belief that surveillance is OK, is that McCain's aide was cited in the WaPo that the FBI did a background check on Palin as part of their vetting process. Clearly a lie, since the bureau then said hey we don't do that actually. Oops! Caught lying, for one, and also revealing that you believe that these background checks are something you just order up from the FBI if you're a politician. "Hey we need a background check pronto on an American citizen, this is McCain's people calling."
— OMalley8

As a state governor and hence National Guard commander, Palin would have to have a Top Secret clearance. This requires a background investigation, usually by the FBI or one of the intelligence agencies. It is purely a check for security risks or expressed anti-American sentiments. It's not the kind of thing that would reveal the kind of information that would necessarily reveal political liabilities. It usually consists of interviews with teachers, clergy, and co-workers. It is a reasonable assumption of the McCain campaign that Palin has had a background check by the FBI and that it didn't turn up anything untoward or she wouldn't be a state governor. But this will have been done some time ago and not at the request of the campaign as part of their vetting process.

And this is my opinion: I think it more likely he was a young, naive idealist, a winsome naif, like most of the people here, including Glenn, on occasion.

Do you include Scott McClellan in that categorization?

Yeah, but how can Congress arrest or detain ANYONE? Do they have a police force, or even a security team?

I can't imagine that the DOJ, which ultimately gets its marching orders from the President and his cronies, would EVER do anything like arrest an ally.
— blunderdog

Yes, Congress has a police force. It is called the United States Capitol Police:

The United States Capitol Police (USCP) is a police force charged with protecting the United States Congress within the District of Columbia and throughout the United States and its territories.

Created by Congress in 1828 following the assault on a son of John Quincy Adams in the Capitol Rotunda, the original duty of the United States Capitol Police was to provide security for the United States Capitol Building. Its mission has expanded to provide the Congressional community and its visitors with a variety of police services. These services are provided through the use of a variety of specialty support units, a network of foot and vehicular patrols, fixed posts, a full time CERT unit, K-9, a Patrol/Mobile Response Division and a full time Hazardous Devices and Hazardous Materials Sections. The agency has 1,700 members as of 2007.

And yes, there are jail cells in the capitol complex.

In the words of Norman Ornstein:

Neither the contempt power of Congress nor executive privilege are explicit in the Constitution. Both are implied powers exercised early and often. Both are subject to debate and negotiation in terms of their applicability and limits, and both have been tested and constrained in some ways by the courts. Most cases of dispute have been settled by negotiation between the branches; some of those cases were recounted by me in an earlier column. But we clearly are dealing with a White House in no mood to compromise, rejecting any reasonable plan to interview or question White House officials privately, with at least a transcript.

In the case of contempt, Congress began early in its history to protect its ability to compel testimony to it by private citizens and executive officials by arresting and jailing--in the Capitol--those who refused to cooperate. The first case dates to 1795. The Supreme Court in 1821, in Anderson v. Dunn, recognized Congress' inherent power but noted that the power was limited to "the least power adequate to the end proposed," and the court limited imprisonment, saying it could not last beyond the adjournment of Congress. Congress passed a statute in 1857 to allow longer terms of imprisonment as well as allowing it to turn contempt cases over to the courts for indictment and trial, with penalties including fines of "not more than $1,000 nor less than $100" and imprisonment "in a common jail of not less than one month nor more than twelve months."

The practice in the 20th century, at least, has been to turn cases over to the Justice Department to handle and allow the courts to intervene if the case involved a tension between legislative and executive prerogatives; 1934 was the last time Congress used its inherent power and handled the prosecution of a contempt case itself. Perhaps this game of chicken will end as most others have, including most cases involving the Republican Congress and the Clinton administration--with negotiations. Probably not. Rozell has said the White House stance in this case "is almost Nixonian in its scope and breadth of interpreting its power. Congress has no recourse at all, in the president's view. ... It's allowing the executive to define the scope and limits of its own power."

Perhaps it is time for Congress to dust off its rusty inherent contempt power, reopen the Capitol hoosegow, get some of the Capitol Police's finest, and put a couple of people behind bars for a few days or a bit longer to show that there is indeed recourse here--that the blanket assertion of executive privilege and untethered executive power just does not wash.

Norman J. Ornstein is a resident scholar at AEI.
http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.26539/pub_detail.asp

Even the American Enterprise Institute, not noted for its liberal policies, is aghast at the executive's execesses.