Democrats Say They Never OK'd Wiretapping

[maddezmom]

WASHINGTON - Some Democrats say they never approved a domestic wiretapping program, undermining suggestions by President Bush and his senior advisers that the plan was fully vetted in a series of congressional briefings.

"I feel unable to fully evaluate, much less endorse, these activities," West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the Senate Intelligence Committee's top Democrat, said in a handwritten letter to Vice President Dick Cheney in July 2003. "As you know, I am neither a technician nor an attorney."

Rockefeller is among a small group of congressional leaders who have received briefings on the administration's four-year-old program to eavesdrop — without warrants — on international calls and e-mails of Americans and others inside the United States with suspected ties to al-Qaida.

The government still would seek court approval to snoop on purely domestic communications, such as calls between New York and Los Angeles.

more:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051220/ap_on_go_co/domestic_spying;_

[Mind_your_head]

1. This memo

Look at the 'ackward postion' that those who knew were/are put in. The information is classified so that they cannot consult/discuss it with anyone else. I wish the 'rest of the letter' was available, perhaps it is somewhere? :shrug:

[oasis]

2. They need to get this message out and hammer it home. (eom)

[rodeodance]

3. They keep getting overwhelmed by loud Repugs saying 'they knew"-

Even Bob Graham FL--last FRIDAY had a comment like Rockerfellers but little of it gets 'out'.

......They need to get this message out and hammer it home.

[salin]

4. As troubling.... also needing hammering is questioning the 'caveat'

do we really believe that this is only about communications from US to (or visa versa) foreign countries? Do we really believe that they seek court orders for communications within the US? Do we really trust when they say that this is only about spying on citizens "suspected of communicating with thmembers of al qeada? Remember this is an administration that considers left groups as possible terrorist threats - but doesn't consider a threat right wing militia groups such as those that spawned McVeigh, or racist groups - such as spawned several killing sprees at the turn of the decade.

THIS needs to be hammered home. Do we TRUST the Bush Admin (implied - most of the public now believes they intentionally lie to us) - that they aren't listening to YOUR phone calls to your cousin/mother/brother/friend who might have attended an anti war protest? Or that they aren't reading your emails to your sister/father/child who might have attended the democratic national convention????

The growing national distrust of the adminstration should be exploited in this story - but perhaps exploitation isn't a correct term - as it occurs to me that the scenarios I type above are very plausable given what has come out about the activities of this administration.

[rodeodance]

6. We 'know' only what gets leaked it seems.

[salin]

8. shouldn't we keep asking these questions?

and framing them in the real, and disturbing way - as in how abuse of power (already in evidence with this admin) could lead to these policies touching OUR lives - not just some distant "bad guy") - when we talk to anyone and the issue comes up? It is time for folks to take this personally.

I live in Indiana - one of the states reportedly more prone towards conspiracy thinking (no idea why)... - this is exactly how I will talk of the administration in the future... if there are folks who feared "black helicopters" under Reno... they should be quaking in their BOOTs about this administration. But somehow folks keep thinking about this in terms of "others" (as in there is no way it could touch me) - but the series of stories (FBI spying on various groups such as anti poverty groups) tied with this.... should make folks wakeup.

[fasttense]

5. And Brush is not in an awkward position?

All those congress critters can be as uncomfortable as they want. I don't care. This is about tyranny and the Constitution. Brush knew what he was doing was illegal and no matter what he said to the minority party, it does not make it legal. He told a New York crowd in April 2004 that "wiretaps require a court order and that hasn't changed." Yet he went ahead and did it and lied about it. If he lied to the American people, what makes you think he told congress the truth?

[rodeodance]

7. the tactic of 'spreading the blame' works well for the Repugs-esp when

they have the loudest microphone (and the most).