Replies

Why couldn't they have expressed their concerns during the briefings?

Their concerns then, as now, carry no weight. The administration is determined to carry out its duty to protect the public.

Why couldn't they have asked for their own legal analysis?

To do so would have compromised the secrecy of the program's existence. There is speculation that Senator Rockefeller may be the leaker - watch what happens to him, and if it's "bad," we will have an object lesson into why Congresspeople informed of deep secrets are reluctant to even hint at their knowledge. Asking others about the legality of certain "hypothetical" activity? "Why do you ask?"

It would seem to me that they had multiple options that didn't potentially compromise an effective program or the security of the country.

If -ANY- disclosure of information to outsiders (that hints at the actual existence of the program) results in "compromise of an effective program" and/or "security of the country," then they have to stay mum. If they don't stay mum, they fail the test that you propose.

As an aside, I just looked up Jane Harman's early statements on the issue. Do you recall (or were you aware) that she was pilloried here for "flip flopping" between December and January, because in January she said that too few members of Congress were informed? FReepers defended her in this post, from December - just so you can see the change in perception.

It turns out she expressed the "too few Congresspeople informed" charge in her first statement. It's point numbered "1" below.

Congresswoman Jane Harman - Press Release
December 21, 2005
HARMAN STATEMENT ON NSA ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM
~ Calls for expanded Congressional briefings, open and closed hearings in New Year ~
Washington , D.C. Congresswoman Jane Harman (D-CA), Ranking Member on the House Intelligence Committee, today issued the following statement:
As the Ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, I have been briefed since 2003 on a highly classified NSA foreign collection program that targeted Al Qaeda. I believe the program is essential to US national security and that its disclosure has damaged critical intelligence capabilities.
Due to its sensitive nature, I have been barred from discussing any aspect of this program, and until the President described certain parts of it on Saturday, I have made no comment whatsoever.
Like many Americans, I am deeply concerned by reports that this program in fact goes far beyond the measures to target Al Qaeda about which I was briefed. Since Saturday, I have consulted my staff as well as attorneys who specialize in constitutional law and now believe that:

1. It was inappropriate to limit congressional briefings on this program to the so-called Gang of Four the most senior majority and minority members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. The National Security Act of 1947 gives the President authority to limit congressional briefings only when covert action not foreign collection is involved.
House Intelligence Committee Democrats have written to the President and Chairman Pete Hoekstra requesting a briefing as well as open and closed hearings as soon as Congress reconvenes in January. Vigorous congressional oversight requires Member and staff involvement.
2. Domestic-to-domestic surveillance requires the approval of a FISA court. It has always been my view that the President must seek FISA approval if domestic-to-domestic surveillance is involved. The FISA statute allows a 72-hour grace period in an emergency.
3) The Blue Ribbon Commission called for by a number of House Democrats is a very good idea. Once armed with full information, Congress can and should change the laws regarding domestic surveillance if warranted.

We must use all lawful tools to detect and disrupt the plans of our enemies; signals intelligence and the work of the NSA are vital to that mission. But in doing so, it is also vital that we protect the American people's constitutional rights.
http://www.house.gov/harman/press/releases/2005/1221PR_nsa.html