What is Jay Rockefeller's problem?

[senseandsensibility]

Talk about weak and wishy washy. He is on Meet the Press with Chuck Hagel discussing the destruction of the torture tapes. He is basically saying nothing, laughing nervously, and sounding befuddled. Hagle, on the other hand, used the terms "obstruction of justice" and "gross malfeasance" .

Even when given the softest of softballs by Schiffer, he couldn't or wouldn't respond. Schiffer asked if there were still tapes in existence and was obviously waiting for him to say that if there were, they better not be erased. Nothing from Jay. So he point blank asked Rockefeller if he would like to send a message that these tapes must not be tampered with. Rockefeller passed, changed the subject and continued to waffle.

I only have one question....what is wrong with our Party? Please tell me if you know.:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh:

[SoFlaJet]

1. The Bush Administration

must have compromising pictures or audio tapes of every senator and congressman and woman in their pockets

[havocmom]

7. wire taps AREN'T for catching terrorists

but ARE for security... cheney's security

[rodeodance]

2. ummm i just watch Rudy on a interview on MTP

[senseandsensibility]

4. ?

I'm on the west coast, and at eight thirty our time, hagel and rockefeller came on. They were the first guests.

[Pathwalker]

9. That was Face The Nation on CBS with Bob Scheiffer.

And the reason he was fumbling with his answers was that the ONLY questions Bob Scheiffer asked him would have required him to give answers which were classified Top Secret, which as Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, he could not give. It was a freakin' set-up.

[senseandsensibility]

20. D'oh!

:blush: That's what happens when you've boycotted corporate news shows for almost four years. I can't tell one from the other anymore.

[Postman]

3. Jay Rockefeller is part of the economic royalists.

He is a republican insurgent in the Democratic Party.

Do you really think the long line of the Rockefeller family cares about left-wing issues? They have their bank account to protect.

[cali]

26. Why yes, yes I do.

Don't know about Jay, but I do know that the Rockefellers are largely responsible for NRDC. Just because you're wealthy doesn't mean you can't care about left wing causes. Does the name Kennedy ring a bell?

[Ioo]

5. Because he may get caught in the mess

If I recall (Jay is my senator) he was the "ranking member" (top Dem when the Repig had the senate) of the Senate inelegance committee, and a report is coming out that the committee WAS TOLD that they would be destroyed. While the repigs did there best to keep everything to them selfs, they did tell Jay and a few others in order to be "bi-partisan". Jay may have signed off on this!

[gateley]

8. That's what I'm thinking...something along those lines. nt

[BlueJac]

6. They have sold out to corporate America.........

It seems like the more we find out the more we see the Democrats squirm. They just know they are not doing their jobs. Can anyone figure out what the hell is going on?

We are headed down the wrong road and being ushered by the Democrats who seem to think of reelections only!

I never thought I would see the day that facsism who show it's ugly head!

[kentuck]

10. He was mighty quick to sign off on immunity ....

for the telecoms that were spying on us.

[Imagevision]

11. Actually this is heavier then Watergate but has been framed properly by the MSM, Rockerfeller

I believe is waiting for the other shoe to drop. Bush/Cheney lying about Iran, then up pops destroying evidence? Bush should be grateful for Oprah being a distraction right now.

[TwilightGardener]

12. I was watching that too--weird. Rockefeller just is not an effective spokesman.

His job there was mostly to say, "I don't know", "I can't tell you", and to agree with whatever Chuck Hagel said. Hagel was the one who was pissed about the tapes, pissed about torture, encouraging talks with Iran. Was he supposed to be the official "Republican response" to counter Jay? LOL!

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

13. His last name says it all. nt

[grasswire]

14. He signed an oath of secrecy as a member of the ..

...Senate Intelligence Committee. He couldn't even talk about the existence of certain memos that he himself wrote to the then chair of the committee.

That oath cripples committe members in these kinds of discussions. They simply can't violate it.

[TwilightGardener]

17. Then why agree to go on TV to NOT talk about what you can't talk about?

Even if he couldn't shed any light on why the tapes were destroyed, and if there are others, he should have at least contributed to the discussion as to why it was wrong for the CIA to do what it did--we don't need to know the details, we need an explanation as to why this is a big issue, and what it means to us as a country. Instead, that fell to Hagel. That was embarrassing.

[grasswire]

19. agreed

Some viewers will know that he can't talk about certain things. Many others will not.

The same thing happens with Senator Wyden in my state. In a public forum, he just cannot talk about the work of the Intelligence Committee.

Of course, the anchor or moderator COULD cover that by saying "I know that you are not allowed to discuss many aspects of the work of the Intelligence Committee, Senator, but can you tell us...."

[senseandsensibility]

23. He stated that he can not discuss those things.

It was the one coherent message he was able to deliver. He was very clear about that, and I'm sure that anyone who watched got it. My criticism was not aimed at his inability to discuss information from the briefings. There were many other things he could have said, especially responding to the extreme softball from the host, that would not have violated that.

[PassingFair]

24. Yes, but ANY democrat voice is better than a republican.

:sarcasm:

It MATTERS what KIND of democrat we put into
positions of power.

[kentuck]

21. I guess the question is:

Does the oath of secrecy override the responsibility to report illegal or criminal activities? How do we know that the videotapes did not show someone dying while being tortured?? Is that not possible? How will we ever know? Trust Rockefeller and Pelosi?

[Warren Stupidity]

25. Actually I am not sure that is entirely true.

In exactly this sort of case, where in essence these people witnessed evidence of a serious crime, I don't think that the secrecy oath would actually apply. What each and everyone of these war criminals was obliged to do once they were made aware of the torture of detainees, was to trot their war criminal asses over to the DOJ and announce that they had evidence of serious criminal behavior. At that point the courts could then decide if secrecy oath trumped evidence of a felony or evidence of a felony trumped secrecy oath.

Is there no crime that would override this oath? If some crime would do so, then the question is simply what level of criminal behavior would negate the oath? Certainly torture would fit that category.

[grasswire]

28. some background

I decided to look into the oath. Here's a few bits of background:

From the Congressional Record in 1991




SECRECY OATH FOR INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE MEMBERS JUSTIFIED (House of Representatives - March 06, 1991)


(Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my deep concerns about the ability of the House Intelligence Committee to conduct business without leaking or mishandling classified information.

The recent rejection of an amendment to require the members of the committee to take an oath of secrecy by a 9-to-6 vote along party lines is deeply disturbing. In addition, the appointment of new members to the committee with strong anti-intelligence feelings does not seem proper or appropriate. These actions make me question the usefulness of the committee and its valuable work.

Although we are all strongly encouraged by the demise of communism, the United States continues to face threats and challenges around the world. Recently, I had the opportunity to visit the Baltic Republics and witness the brutality and deception of the Soviet Government. The Soviet Union is not a free or democratic society, and it would be an enormous mistake to compromise our intelligence capabilities in any way at this time.

Finally, I believe it is extremely important to remember that the lives of our brave men and women in the intelligence community are directly impacted by our actions. We must ensure that our intelligence gathering capabilities are not jeopardized, and the safety of our personnel endangered.

Mr. Speaker, I do not question the honor of the members of the Intelligence Committee, but I feel requiring an oath of secrecy from the committee members is justified, especially when you realize the lives of our agents and the integrity of our Nation's intelligence is at stake.

http://ftp.fas.org/irp/congress/1991_cr/h910306-hpsci.htm

more to follow -- my browser just locked up and I have to post this or lose it.

[grasswire]

29. intimidating leakers in the press

From May 2006
http://newsbusters.org/node/5356

..........
Maybe most important, Hoekstra stated definitively what appears so obvious to the overwhelming majority of Americans, yet is lost on most media members:

“And third, persons entrusted with extremely sensitive information about this program have taken it upon themselves to jeopardize it by leaking to the news media. This is a breach of trust with the American public, and I am concerned that my Democratic colleagues are turning a blind eye to this illegal activity. As Americans, we should all be ashamed that Al Qaeda can learn about our efforts to defend our nation just by picking up the morning paper.”


Hoekstra then enunciated the difficulty the administration has in defending its actions without further compromising national security: “The problem for responsible members of the administration, and the intelligence committees in Congress, is that we are not allowed to discuss intelligence leaks. We cannot tell the public details of the damage that has been done to our ability to stay a step ahead of Al Qaeda because to do so would confirm that damage — and that would help the enemy just as much as a leak.”

He continued with this train of thought:

“We cannot tell the public whether American intelligence officers have died since 9/11 protecting the secrets that are being cavalierly leaked. We cannot discuss the financial losses incurred when top-secret technologies developed at huge cost to taxpayers are revealed on Page 1, rendering them useless against our foes. What I can assure you is that leaks are costly in every sense of the word. They endanger all Americans.”

Then, Hoekstra lashed out at his colleagues on the left side of the aisle who seem to have ceded their responsibility to protect the sanctity and privacy of national intelligence for their own political interests:

“I regret that I see little sign of intolerance for unauthorized disclosures of intelligence to the media from some of my Democratic colleagues today. If an individual with knowledge of the Terrorist Surveillance Program thought it was wrong or illegal, he or she could have gone to the intelligence oversight committees under the procedures established by law. By going to the media, the leaker broke the law and the oath he or she swore to protect the nation's legitimate secrets.

“This was a grave crime that helped Al Qaeda and its allies in the information war by providing an understanding of our defenses and vulnerabilities against terrorist attacks.”

[grasswire]

31. the idea of an oath first arose in the Iran Contra hearings

Dan Inouye and Lee Hamilton chaired those. I can't copy from that page of the Iran Contra report, but it is very interesting and should be read by those interested in the origin of the oath.

http://books.google.com/books?id=ew_K3auTwEgC&pg=PA584&lpg=PA584&dq=senate+intelligence+committee+secrecy+oath&source=web&ots=IvOuRqSmAC&sig=si8RC2SFISCbcTS75yx-J4Vy1FM

[Beelzebud]

15. He's a Rockefeller...

[L. Coyote]

16. YOU LIED! You have two questions, and the second one is a DEM BASH!

Not even a clever bash.

"I only have one question....what is wrong with our Party?" and "What is Jay Rockefeller's problem?" is two questions!

One person in one interview is not a political party. Pure and simple, and obvious, uou are playing games to bash the DEMS!

[senseandsensibility]

22. Yeah, you got me.

I'm a repug undercover troll with bad grammar to boot. Why not alert on me? I'm sure you could get this thread locked immediately.

[Warren Stupidity]

18. He is a Rockefeller. nt.

[stirlingsliver]

27. "Washingtonitis"

Rockefeller wants to be re-elected, and THINKS (or, rather doesn't really think) that he cannot speak the truth. He thinks that if he speaks the truth, he won't get re-elected.

Hagel, on the other hand, has nothing to lose by speaking the truth. He isn't running for re-election.

[Greyhound]

30. Is there something about the name Rockefeller that is confusing?

He is a scion and beneficiary of the NWO. What else would you expect? "Our" government is doing exactly what his class has directed it to do. Everything is proceeding nicely and there is nothing wrong with the party, it is fulfilling its role of creating the illusion of choice perfectly.

[dmosh42]

32. Nothing wrong here! Bunch of old rich, white guys understand...

our problems. But they don't see any reason to change course. Just like Bush!

[Inuca]

33. Link to write-up and video

InterroGate: Sens. Slam CIA Tape Scandal http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/12/09/ftn/main3595903.shtml

Thats was one strange interview... Rockfeller tip-toeing, understandably so, but still. Hagel more blunt, as usual, but seemed distracted (at some point, when asked about the plausability of Harriet Miers knowing about the planned distruction of the tapes and not telling anyone in the WH, he answered as if the question was about the Iran NIE). Still, some interesting stuff, including that CIA's Hayden will pay a visit to the Senate intelligence committee this coming Tuesday, and Hagel's suggestion of possible malfeasance within the WH. He also added "incompetency", but that one is a given.