Rockefeller and Pelosi COULDN'T Release Their Letters

It appears that one of the GOP talking points on the domestic spying scandal is to denigrate and even ridicule Jay Rockefeller's and Nancy Pelosi's letters to the White House protesting the spying policy divulged to them in classified meetings.  This morning on NPR I heard GOP Representative Peter Hokestra claim that if Senator Rockefeller was really concerned about the domestic spying program revealed last week by the NYT, then he could have done more than write a letter.

Bullshit.  

Well, let me clarify that.  Rockefeller could have publicized the existence and actions of the program, but if he or any of the other members of Congress briefed on the program went public with their opposition, they would have been breaking the law.  To fail to acknowledge that anyone briefed on this program essentially had no way to oppose or publicize the existence of the program without breaking the law is bullshit.

As a member of the so-called "gang of four" which includes the top Republican and Democrat of the Senate and House intelligence committees, Rockefeller was one of four members of Congress who received those briefings. The group can be summoned to the White House on short notice to be advised on the most sensitive intelligence information or plans for covert operations. It is safe to assume that if the United States is, in fact, operating secret prisons overseas, these four know plenty about them.

But membership also has its burdens. The "gang" -- Republican Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas and Rep. Peter Hoekstra of Michigan and Democrats Rockefeller and Rep. Jane Harman of California -- is virtually gagged from discussing anything from meetings with anyone outside the group -- not even other senators, staffers or lawyers with security clearance on the intelligence committees. "You can't discuss it with anybody as long as you live," Rockefeller said Monday.

And for Rockefeller and Harmon, the senior Democrats on the Senate and House intelligence committees, respectively, membership can be even more problematic. If they want to object to anything the administration is doing, they're forbidden from doing so publicly.

That was the case with Rockefeller until Monday. He'd informed the administration he had concerns and was suspicious of the NSA program, but he had no recourse to stop it from going forward and he couldn't go public. "I wasn't going to say anything until the president starting talking about it so openly," he said.

In laying out his case for the NSA's domestic wire tapping on Saturday, Bush told the nation, "Leaders in Congress have been briefed more than a dozen times on this authorization and the activities conducted under it." Questioned about whether executive power had run amok at Monday's presidential news conference, an irritated Bush replied, "We're talking to Congress all the time, and on this program, to suggest there's unchecked power is not listening to what I'm telling you. I'm telling you, we have briefed the United States Congress on this program a dozen times."

Rockefeller was annoyed. "They're just saying we're all briefed and informed and they implied implicit consent and all the rest of that and it's totally untrue," he recounted outside the Senate chamber after Bush's news conference. He said the impression the administration was leaving was "totally phony."

According to the WaPo, "Rockefeller wrote obliquely of 'the sensitive intelligence issues we discussed today.' Yesterday, after confirming with White House officials that the letter contains no classified information," he released the letter.  The fact that Pelosi has requested that her letter be declassified suggests that her's is probably not as vague as Rockefeller's, and contains more specific information that is currently still classified.

But the most important thing to remember is this: because of the laws and regulations governing national intelligence and Congressional oversight, Congressional critics of the domestic spying were legally prohibited from publicly voicing their opposition to the program.  How fitting that GOP shils, who themselves don't seem troubled by the fact that the administration isn't troubled by the fact that a CIA agent's cover was blown for political reasons, proffer Democrats' refusals to break intelligence and espionage laws as evidence that they weren't troubled by domestic spying on Americans.