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.
I don't know what efforts he made "privately," or even if he delivered a copy of his handwritten "letter of concerns" to the VP. My point was that -IF- he believes the activity is out of statutory and/or constitutional boundaries, and is also sworn to secrecy by the briefer, he's stuck between a rock and a hard place. What possible action could he take, that doesn't run the risk of stopping the activity? What to do if it's a close legal call?
Not that Rockerfeller has a noble motive, I don't think he does, but a person could have a nobel motive and be concerned thatteh activity would not be legally useful in the short or long term, e.g., evidence tossed by court, risk of pissing off Congress. OTOH, all information is useful for extra-legal action, such as liquidation or removal of the target without access to courts.
Aa a parallel, I'd wave the President off the "AUMF is express authorization to engage in the NSA surveillance" argument - not becaue I disagree with the surveillance, but because I think the argument has too many holes in it.
When the Democrats show me that they were bullied, gagged and otherwise turned away from raising their concerns ...
I don't think any of that exists. To the extent concerns were raised, I think the adminstration said nothing more than "I hear you," with no intention of changing course. According to Gonzales, the administration didn't approach any member of Congress with the notion of a broader statute until 2004.
... I will be more sympathetic to the path its alleged they chose to have this debate.
The path they chose is clear. Leak existence of the program, then call "illegal" when the President confirms existence of the program. Without more, withut fleshing out "where to go from here," their path stinks. I don't have any sympathy for the follow-up, at all. At the same time, I think the leak itself is not very damaging, because all it amounts to is "not all secret surveillance by the government is prefixed with a secret warrant."
Given that revelation, I do wonder what action the government planned and plans to take with knowlege gained from secret surveillance obtained without a secret warrant. Arrest? Criminal charges? Military detention without arrest and charges?