Does anyone else find it wrong that certain congressmen knew about Bush's NSA eavesdropping and elected to keep it from "oversight"? I can understand not going to the public or news media but I don't understand not pursuing some sort of investigation into it. Clearly, the information acquired through the taps is classified but to keep silent about committing the crime because its "classified" seems lame to me. For example, John Rockefeller wrote a memo and kept it on file. Not to single out Rockefeller, but what kind of oversight is that? All that does is cover his behind in case someone else blows the whistle.
Maybe I'm all wet here but stashing a memo stating ones disagreement with a crime you are aware of (or similar actions taken in the case of others)in a time capsule hardly meets the obligations of oversight. Oversight would be putting the light the law on the subject.
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
