« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Rockefeller Urges Bush to Share Surveillance Docs
It took a week after his committee was allowed to review documents related to the legality of the administration's warrantless surveillance program, but Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) publicly urged the White House to give the Senate and House judiciary committees the same access. "It's past time that the Administration provide all committees of jurisdiction with access to these documents so they too can make informed decisions about critical national security programs," he said in a press release this afternoon.
Rockefeller has come under attack from civil libertarians for drafting a surveillance bill granting retroactive legal immunity for telecom companies and yanking the FISA Court from its oversight role of surveillance of foreign-to-domestic communications.
The leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday reiterated its demand for the documents it subpoenaed three months ago. Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Arlen Specter (R-PA) said "it is wrongheaded to ask Senators to consider immunity without their being informed about the legal justifications purportedly excusing the conduct being immunized." Indeed, Rockefeller's press release demonstrates their point. Its concluding sentences:
Finally, Rockefeller noted that the larger issue of whether the Administration acted illegally in authorizing its warrantless surveillance program is still an open question. The committee will continue its efforts to understand the legal underpinnings of the program.
So, in other words, Rockefeller just blessed a program that he can't yet certify is legal; and included in his blessing a blanket promise of immunity for companies that he can't say didn't break the law. "Wrongheaded" seems like a bit of an understatement.
Comments (20)
Mafalda Hopkirk wrote on October 23, 2007 5:12 PM:Amazing what a little negative publicity will do! And sad that a person becomes a weather vane, twisting this way and that, depending on where the strongest winds are coming from.
Jake D. wrote on October 23, 2007 5:16 PM:O.K., so now it's open season on Rockefeller?! If "wrongheaded" seems like a bit of an understatement to TPM, how about "corrupt"? Still not going to go that far, huh?
PW wrote on October 23, 2007 5:40 PM:I like Jay, but his actions on this have been indefensible.
urbino wrote on October 23, 2007 6:41 PM:Given the level of financial ties between Rockefeller and the telecoms, I'd say "corrupt" is exactly the word for it, as it is for DNI McConnell's involvement.
luneylegume wrote on October 23, 2007 6:50 PM:Thanks to ignorance that goodness is still not a crime . Think of how terribly awful that would be . The thought that the quotidian brigade of contrarian inspiration should work that out , OH THE HUMANITY !
Mark C wrote on October 23, 2007 6:56 PM:So John Davison Rockefeller takes time off of selling out the American people and the US Constitution, so as to inform the fascist Dick n' W show they should really, really start paying attention to the same constitution he has already shit on.
I be impressed.
No, really......
Almost as impressed as I am by Pat n' Arlen sending yet another nasty letter.
No really.../
What a fucking joke our government has become. When do we finally reach the punchline?
Mongo wrote on October 23, 2007 7:05 PM:So I can see the potential for some good here namely, we should be able to calculate what it costs to buy a Rockefeller.
Persona non grata wrote on October 23, 2007 7:25 PM:Did someone say "punchline"?
It goes like this:
107th US Congress + 108th US Congress + 109th US Congress + 110th US COngress + US Supreme Court + Bush Administraton = TRAITORS
What? How come your not laughing? The punchline is that these pyschophants have sold the republic out to the highest bidders.
jawbone wrote on October 23, 2007 8:40 PM:Is Rockefeller the Dems' version of Specter? Lots of good, strong, even powerful statements--and then--poof!--nothing.
Joe Buck wrote on October 23, 2007 9:10 PM:He's trying to cover his ass. He and Feinstein, I think, are claiming that those documents reveal just why they need to give the administration godlike powers, and they are probably expecting the administration to help them out by refusing to produce them. Of course, those documents were produced by the administration to advance their case. If the Judiciary committee does get those documents, they should also call the ACLU and EFF lawyers to present their side of the case.
Anonymous wrote on October 23, 2007 10:21 PM:Why did anyone in the Senate agree -- without discussion in secret with the Senate leadership/Committee Chairs -- to agree to anything with the President? Time for the Senate Committee Chairs to get asked this question: Why are you afraid of going into a secret session to share the notes between Committees?
The Senate has the power to review any evidence, but refuses to openly or in secret discuss what the White House gave them. There is no excuse for anyone in the Senate -- on their own, or as a committee -- to speak for the Senate; or promise anything. No Committee speaks for the Senate. The Senate -- as a body -- needs to be compelled to go on the record: Are they going to share information within their own chamber or not; will they use their power of secret sessions to review what one committee received; and why is one committee binding the entire Senate to engage in inaction on violations of the Supreme Law, arguably a violation of the oath of office?
This Senate does not have an oath to the President. It has an oath to the US Constitution. Senators who forget that, or who have reservations about that oath, need to be prosecuted. Do not wait until the 2008 election. Encourage your friends to support direct prosecutions of Members of Congress in 2007.
Helzapoppin wrote on October 23, 2007 10:22 PM:Yeah, whatever Jay.
Who would have ever expected someone named Rockefeller to be in the pocket of corporate interests. DUH.
JR needs to be primaried the hell out of there. asap.
We NEED NEW Gov't! wrote on October 23, 2007 11:10 PM:So THAT's what I am, eh?
"Rockefeller has come under attack from CIVIL LIBERTARIANS..." (CAPS mine)
Mind you, I'm not looking to 'come across as 'snarky' here. I am a HUGE fan of this site - & ALL of the TPM sites.
I'm just commenting on the tendency of everyone (it seems) these days to attach a label to anyone who expresses an opinion.
(Hey - I'll checkout dictionary.com... Your appellation might be completely 'on the money'!)
- Just saying that I don't see myself as representing any kind of designated Sub-Group of Americans who are cognizant of the horribly depressing state of politics trapped by the throes of the monstrous and (hopefully) dying uber-conservative GOP led federal government: & can therefore be labeled ANYTHING...
I'd rather anyone & Everyone simply think of the likes of me as a Concerned American: an American who supports the constitution & DEMANDs that the politicians we've elected (& even those who were placed in charge by SCOTUS!) live up to their oaths of office.
PS: I loved the NYT OpEd the other day which excoriated the Democratic majority in Congress for its fecklessness.
Nevertheless - let's look deeper than the cover-all-bases condemnation of cowardice, okay? If Rockefeller's recent (long-term, actually) actions demonstrate, we'd all have a much better grasp of what our governmental representatives are REALLY up to if we'd just follow Deep Throat's admonition to simply - and ALWAYS - "FOLLOW THE MONEY"!
TPMmucktaker does Just THAT, Thank the God(s) I don't believe in!
Thank-You, Thank-You, THANK-YOU!
jollyroger wrote on October 24, 2007 12:37 AM:Forgive me if I suggest that perhaps we are being a bit obtuse.
viz,
We watch the slow motion wreck of the constitution repeated over and over, with different Dems playing the role of Trick Willy, as necessity demands. We tear out our hair at their inexplicably supine behaviour...
Now, here we are. lamenting a long standing program that, essentially, listens to EVERYTHING about EVERYBODY.
Why are we surprised to see from the Dems behavior consistent with being blackmailed a la J. Edgar Hoover and LBJ (for clarity, I am referencing the job security stash of info that Hoover kept on LBJ--and pretty much everyone else of importance in DC)
Can there be any doubt that each of our national solons has a skeleton or three the exposure of which (merely a packet of pictures to the spouse, from "a friend" eg) would destroy some valued life interest?
That said, can there be any doubt that the said skeleton is dancing, even now, on an NSA hard drive?
KnotIookin wrote on October 24, 2007 12:43 AM:its not 'wrongheaded' it is payback for a sudden 'surge' in telecom campaign donations to Mr Rockefeller and I am beyond disappointed to find this out.
But J Rockefeller deserves NO Free pass for selling us out for campaign cash!!
KnotIookin wrote on October 24, 2007 12:43 AM:its not 'wrongheaded' it is payback for a sudden 'surge' in telecom campaign donations to Mr Rockefeller and I am beyond disappointed to find this out.
But J Rockefeller deserves NO Free pass for selling us out for campaign cash!!
2turk wrote on October 24, 2007 3:08 AM:Rocky since becoming the chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has raked in $45,000.00 from both Verizon and AT&T. The telecoms face a civil suit asking for $20 billion in damages for illegally wire tapping American's phones, faxes, and Internet communications.
$90k to Rocky's reelection campaign fund to get retroactive immunity is far cheaper than $20 billion in court damages for disregard of customers Constitutional Rights. Follow the stench of the money with these fascist corporatists. This government smells like defrosted chicken at three days in the hot summer sun.
lyndoc wrote on October 24, 2007 8:35 AM:Are we to believe that the 42,000 bucks in donations to Jay from the telecoms since March had nothing to do with his willingness to give retroactive immunity. Sorry Jay we aren't stupid and I have no problem calling him corrupt. The telecoms willingly handed out our private conversations to this administration long before 9/11. It never had anything to do with "homeland security" but with the profits promised them by Bush if they went along with his plans to break our privacy rights and spy on us.
wagonjak wrote on October 24, 2007 12:56 PM:Oh Goodness Gracious, Rockefeller "Urges" Bush to share surviellance documents...what a Meanie!
Those Dem leaders really know how to draw a line in the sand and hold to their constitutional values don't they?
Rockefeller has shown himself to be just another whore for big business for his willingness to give the Telecommunications industry blanket and retroactive immunity for any crimes they've committed.
Bush will never do anything he doesn't want to do unless the Dems grow some cajones and RAM IT DOWN HIS F**KING THROAT!
Oh-and in more breaking news, Judge Leslie Southwick has been confirmed by the Senate and Senator Boxer was to busy to vote!
AAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!
wagonjak wrote on October 24, 2007 12:57 PM:Oh Goodness Gracious, Rockefeller "Urges" Bush to share surviellance documents...what a Meanie!
Those Dem leaders really know how to draw a line in the sand and hold to their constitutional values don't they?
Rockefeller has shown himself to be just another whore for big business for his willingness to give the Telecommunications industry blanket and retroactive immunity for any crimes they've committed.
Bush will never do anything he doesn't want to do unless the Dems grow some cajones and RAM IT DOWN HIS F**KING THROAT!
Oh-and in more breaking news, Judge Leslie Southwick has been confirmed by the Senate and Senator Boxer was to busy to vote!
AAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!