Replies

I was aware of the original Harmon statement. Maybe I'm missing something but it seems to me that it was an admission of incompetence.

I wasn't accusing you of not reading the orginal statement. I was pointing out FR threads where readers said Harman flip-flopped, when the record shows otherwise.

Since she raised the issue of non-conformity with The National Security Act of 1947 in her December 21, 2005 statement, I take that your conclusion, "admission of incompetence," refers to Harman not raising the charge before the President confirmed the existence of the NSA program.

The right to limit the congressional briefings, at least as she describes the law, is not based on complex legal or constitutional issues.

Oh? Then provide your simple analysis of the NSA activity in light of the relevant statute.

TITLE 50 : CHAPTER 15 : SUBCHAPTER III - ACCOUNTABILITY FOR INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES

A first question (I think easily answered) is, "Is the NSA program 'covert,' as defined in the accountability to Congress statute?"

A tougher matter is construction of the phrase "To the extent consistent with due regard for the protection from unauthorized disclosure of classified information relating to sensitive intelligence sources and methods or other exceptionally sensitive matters"

Rockefeller, it's speculated, leaked to the press. That's hardly the first option of someone genuinely concerned about both the security of this country and the constitutional issues in question.

What are his options? I concluded he was between a rock and a hard place in my post 2537 above.

Can raise the issue in the briefing, but so what? The briefers are determined to continue with the program regardless of opposition.
Expressing any hint, outside the briefing, that discloses even the possibility of the program, results in risk of "compromise of an effective program" and/or "compromise security of the country."

Then provide your simple analysis of the NSA activity in light of the relevant statute.

As I said, the law as she described it, since I wasn't inclined to go study the statute. Let me just say, if I were the ranking member of a critical committee, particularly at a time of war and high tension with the executive branch, I'd make myself familiar with the laws outlining mine and the executive branches duties.

I concluded he was between a rock and a hard place

So it is your opinion that he made a reasonable effort to bring his concerns to the attention of the administration or even others involved in the briefings? That's certainly not my impression.

I acknowledge the legal and constitutional positions here, I think they are worthy of debate. When the Democrats show me that they were bullied, gagged and otherwise turned away from raising their concerns, I will be more sympathetic to the path its alleged they chose to have this debate.