Can someone please tell me if Sen. Durbin has been released from his secrecy oath RE:

[Sapphire Blue]

Sen. Durbin knew: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x788401

I would really appreciate an answer. Thanks.

[rodeodance]

1. send a letter to him or contact his office

[Sapphire Blue]

5. I've called his office. They did not answer my question, said they didn't have the info.

The actual response I got was "Secrecy oath?" to which I replied, "Yes. The senator is now stating that as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, he was sworn to secrecy, and could not share the information that he had prior to the invasion of Iraq. Has he been released from that oath?" The staffer's next reply was "I'm sorry. We don't have that information."

[illinoisprogressive]

2. I don't know. I am sure this has been something that has weighed heavy on him.

Please know that Dick durbin is much loved here and is an honorable man. There is no one in Illinois who says anything less. He is the first to tell about this so, it would have been easy to say nothing at all if he was not honorable and this did not weigh heavy on his conscience.

[magellan]

3. Don't know. But it's a question I've been asking too.

If he's still bound by that oath of secrecy then he needs to explain why he's coming forward now but didn't then.

[Sapphire Blue]

6. Exactly.

[magellan]

11. From a quick dig around the internets

...turning up nothing, I believe the likely answer is this: there is no statute of limitations on intel committee secrets.

My experience in the military with a security clearance is that you're never, ever allowed to discuss intel covered by your oath without risking prosecution, even if the matter eventually becomes public knowledge. We had to sign declarations to that effect. Durbin and the rest were probably required to do the same in order to view the Iraq intel.

This is my assumption so I'd be happy for someone to correct me if they know better. If it's true, the question stands. Why speak now and claim you couldn't before because of an oath you're still covered by?

[Warpy]

4. It seems to me that to be sworn to secrecy to cover a crime

won't stand up in any court in the country.

There are times that the law trumps any sort of loyalty oath to criminals.

[The Stranger]

7. I bet he'll apologize again to the GOP.

Just ask him.

[LSK]

8. see this thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=775754&mesg_id=789050

[Sapphire Blue]

9. Could you please be a little more specific & point to something in that thread that states...

... whether or not Sen. Durbin has been released from his oath?

[LSK]

10. perhaps the numerous Intel reports that have since debunked what he was told

In the meetings.

:shrug:

[mdmc]

12. Durbin is one of the best. Question- Why now?

Dick was always one of the best. But now we see DLC'ers and the GOP picking apart this war. Why now? Has he been lifted from his secrecy oath or is it just too important to come public, to hell with the oath?


I only know a couple of bushbots. Even one of them is now against the war (although not entirely done with w.). Seems like everyone is against this unpopular war.

[LiberalFighter]

13. Did he state anything specific in the report?

It was in just broad terms. Right?

[Sapphire Blue]

14. Still waiting on a definitive answer...

Not a "maybe this" or "perhaps that".