Question on NSA taps.........

[splat@14]

Does anyone else find it wrong that certain congressmen knew about Bush's NSA eavesdropping and elected to keep it from "oversight"? I can understand not going to the public or news media but I don't understand not pursuing some sort of investigation into it. Clearly, the information acquired through the taps is classified but to keep silent about committing the crime because its "classified" seems lame to me. For example, John Rockefeller wrote a memo and kept it on file. Not to single out Rockefeller, but what kind of oversight is that? All that does is cover his behind in case someone else blows the whistle.

Maybe I'm all wet here but stashing a memo stating ones disagreement with a crime you are aware of (or similar actions taken in the case of others)in a time capsule hardly meets the obligations of oversight. Oversight would be putting the light the law on the subject.

Opinion?

Splat!

[carolinalady]

1. It seems strange to me as well. I don't buy the "we weren't

allowed to discuss it with anyone argument as well." You would think they would have some sort of legal council available to them. It leads me to only one conclusion. They wanted to let old George dig himself deeper and deeper and were banking on the story getting "leaked to the public". Just goes to show that they really aren't that noble about our rights, but rather played a political card. Hey if it works, I am all for it. I loathe the man in office, but I won't wear any rose colored glasses regarding the "upright moral fiber" of our party either.
ed:sp

[Sydnie]

2. They were told it was classified so they couldn't speak about it

If they did speak about it, they would have committed a crime (treason?). They were told the information because of the committees that they served on. Pelosi and Rockefeller had written to express their concern over the program and the information that they had been given, but there was little else they could have done, unfortunately.

[shraby]

3. He is forbidden by his security clearance to

reveal anything, and apparently he wasn't given enough information to evaluate the program. A copy of his letter was sent to v.p. Cheney who had briefed him on the program and he received no reply to his questions. He couldn't talk to his lawyers or staff and apparently even v.p. Cheney about it.
Do you have any suggestions as to what he should have done?

[splat@14]

5. No. I don't have any ideas which is why I brought it up. I was hoping

Someone else that knew more about the rights and powers of those we elect to bring something to the table. Maybe there isn't anything more they could have done, but by that reasoning, anything Bush and the boys want to do they can go ahead as long as they call it classified. More than a little scary but that does define this administration.

Thanks for the thought!
Splat

[baldguy]

4. Bush telling two or three congressmen *IS* oversight.

When said congressmen don't take the responsibilities of their office seriously, and instead take orders from the people they're supposed to be watching - the republic dies.

[splat@14]

7. Meaning that Bush did his job, congress didn't? Interesting thought. n/t

[Little Star]

6. Something is wrong with the oversight laws

If they have to keep possible unconstitutional secrets. Something is wrong with the wording of the law. They should be questioned in depth about why they felt they had to keep unlawful acts a secret. They should also be showing outrage that they were so constrained and seek to change the law. If they don't then it appears that they don't take their oversight roll seriously. These kind of things are what make Dem's look week. On second thought it proves they are weak.