Let's say you're elected to the House. And then let's say you get a seat on the Intel Committee.

[Stinky The Clown]

As a member of the Intel Committee, you're sworn to keeping state secrets. That means if you talk about matters that are clearly presented as being 'classified' you violate national security if you speak about it.

In one briefing, you hear some administration functionary tell the committee that some three letter agency tortured a few guys. You hear where and how and you see the tapes they took of the events. They then destroy the tapes, again citing national security. You're reminded (quite appropriately) that if you speak, you're (figuratively?) dead.

What do you do?

[robbedvoter]

1. I voted "I talk" hoping I'd be that brave...However "I resign" is probably more realistic

[endarkenment]

2. As a witness to multiple serious felonies you are compelled to act.

The ethical issue here is so very clear: state secrecy is not a license to commit crimes. End of story. There is no dilemma.

[Fleshdancer]

3. I would talk.

Would I have the courage to do it face to face? I don't know. I DO know that masking the voice while making phone calls to journalists is an option that has proven successful in the past.

If I were elected to the House, I hope I wouldn't forget my purpose. Hiding the fact that I know my country is torturing would go against everything I believe in.

[Solly Mack]

4. Let's see... would I expose war crimes or would I hide behind an oath

- an oath that was never intended to be used to cover up for crimes - and remain silent about the war crimes being committed?

hmmm...

let me think

I can't carry a tune but I sure as fuck would be singing

I can't tell you we're committing war crimes because it's a state secret that we're breaking federal and international law and committing war crimes.

I can't share those memos with you because of national security.

I can't tell you what methods we use because it might harm our ability to effectively fight the terrorists and it would hurt our national security. The terrorists would learn to combat our methods.

What's the difference?

Which oath is greater? The oath of office - which is a pledge to the country, its Constitution, and the people - or an oath that is used to cover up crimes?

[ThomWV]

5. No Congress Member would be threatened with death, that is simply absurd.

What they would be threatened with is jail.

However, sworn to secrecy or not they are still not bound to with hold information about any crime that has been comitted. Executive Agency secrecy and classification systems can not be used to cover up criminal activity - period.

[mikelgb]

6. let's see the pigs come after me for talking

a similar scenario with the royalties of government removed:
You signed a confidentiality agreement with a man. Breaking this contract is against the law.

The man calls you into a room and shows you a video of him murdering someone.

What do you do?

Break the contract and rat him out? But that is illegal! Shame!

Clearly his crime is way more heinous than yours will be and there is a good chance that you can be exonerated by a judge if you tell everybody.

[blues90]

7. I would have sworn to uphold the constitution first and foremost

I could not hold back info like this and allow people to die , I could not live with it .

[in_cog_ni_to]

8. Talk. This is a matter of DEMOCRATIC Principles. What IF

that member of the committee went to the members of their party, ALL OF THEM, told what they knew and as a GROUP went forward with the info? What? They're going to remove ALL the Democratic Senators/Reps from office? I don't think so.

[0rganism]

9. anonymously leak info to the press, perhaps?

It might give them something interesting to ask about in those softball press conferences we see so often.

I wouldn't want to come forward personally, since doing so would compromise my access to said information, but I would leak like a sieve if I saw an obviously illegal and unconscionable violation of human rights.

[in_cog_ni_to]

10. The press wouldn't print it because they would call Cheney to see what's up and that would be

the end of that.

[0rganism]

12. maybe, but there are still a few gadflies out there

Get me the hotline to Helen Thomas! :D

[JackRiddler]

11. I like the part where I'm elected to the House.

That's unlikely, but it's a fine thought.

Since I would assuredly run on a platform stating that the US must abolish the CIA, throw open all of its historical records, disclose everything about 9/11, illegalize covert operations, shut down mercenary outfits a la Blackwater, cut the Pentagon budget by 50 percent minimum, decriminalize drugs (the life's blood of "intelligence" operations), bring home US troops from every country in the world that doesn't hold a popular referendum to keep them, end all military aid to foreign countries, and initiate talks for regional and worldwide conventional and nuclear disarmament and an end to the arms trade...

I think getting a seat on the House intel committee would be the hard part by comparison.

At least in my first term.