Rockefeller on Bush’s NSA Shift: ‘Unacceptable,’ ‘I Can’t Trust What They’re Doing’
Rockefeller on Bush’s NSA Shift: ‘Unacceptable,’ ‘I Can’t Trust What They’re Doing’
Earlier this month, the Bush administration announced it was submitting its warrantless domestic spying program to the FISA court for its review. The move was judged by the media to be a “major change,” an “about-face,” and a “sharp reversal.”
But details of the administration’s actions have remained “sketchy,” and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales offered few clarifying explanations in a recent Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. Bush has said, “Nothing has changed in the program except the court has said we’ve analyzed it and it’s a legitimate way to protect the country.”
In an interview this weekend, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman John Rockefeller (D-WV) said he believes the administration is trying to hide something. He added, “[The administration's action] is not acceptable to me…simply because I can’t trust what they say.” Rockefeller explained, “In the end, every single wiretap has to have a warrant. No, I don’t trust what they’re doing.” Watch it:
Transcript:
QUESTION: In that same vein, the White House reversed course and said it was going to submit its program to court review. Yet, as chairman of the committee they so far, I believe, have refused to show you the details of that agreement. Do you think they’re trying to hide something?
ROCKEFELLER: Yes, I do. Never doubt my answer to a question like that when it comes to the White House and sharing intelligence. Allowing the Intelligence Committees to do their lawful work. Without oversight, governments run amuck. They can’t help it.
[...]
QUESTION: Senator, if what the administration has done is to convince the FISA court to review criteria, rather than specific cases. Is that acceptable to you?
ROCKEFELLER: It is not acceptable on me. And in fact, most of what the administration announced about that whole procedure, working through the FISA courts, was not acceptable to me simply because I can’t trust what they say. In the end, every single wiretap has to have a warrant. No, I don’t trust what they’re doing. My basic premise is what the president said to the entire country. It doesn’t make any difference what the congress says I’m going to go ahead with my plans, and indeed, he will.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Can’t trust em? Whaaaa?
January 29th, 2007 at 11:56 am“[The administration’s action] is not acceptable to me…simply because I can’t trust what they say.†Rockefeller explained, “In the end, every single wiretap has to have a warrant. No, I don’t trust what they’re doing.â€
Thank you, Captain Obvious…..
January 29th, 2007 at 11:59 amRockafella talking about trust, gimme a break.
January 29th, 2007 at 12:00 pmNow Lieberman and Fox network will begin attacking Senator Rockefeller as embolding the enemy. So, he must stay silent to avoid the smear…
January 29th, 2007 at 12:03 pmCome on ForTruth, how about some facts or examples for us to consume. Unlike Sen Roberts, who allowed the WHouse and gang to get away with anything they wanted, at least Rockefeller APPEARS to be attempting some oversight on this gang of thieves.
January 29th, 2007 at 12:09 pmAlright, alright, at least Rocky appears to be attempting some oversight on the criminal Bush administration, whom by the way, emboldens the enemy at every turn.
January 29th, 2007 at 12:11 pmYeah, we need to give Sen Rockefeller credit where credit is due.
Good job, Rocky!
January 29th, 2007 at 12:19 pmFaiz – grammar check on aisle 3…
January 29th, 2007 at 12:20 pm“announced it was submitted” ???
I have absolute trust and faith in bushco. I am convinced they will do everything possible to screw the American citizens and everything theysay is a lie,
January 29th, 2007 at 12:23 pmHere is the meat from an article in the NYTimes regarding the one that will not go away. “At least one case, the one in Oregon, is probably not moot. It goes beyond the other cases in seeking damages from the government, because the plaintiffs say they have seen proof that they were wiretapped without a warrant.
In August 2004, the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control, which was investigating an Oregon charity, al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, inadvertently provided a copy of a classified document to a foundation lawyer, Lynne Bernabei.
That document indicated, according to court filings, that the government monitored communications between officers of the charity and two of its lawyers without a warrant in spring 2004.
“If I gave you this document today and you put it on the front page of The New York Times, it would not threaten national security,†Mr. Eisenberg, a lawyer for the foundation, said. “There is only one thing about it that’s explosive, and that’s the fact that our clients were wiretapped.†Here is the link to the whole story:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/26/washington/26nsa.html?ei=5094&en=9044950dc6386d92&hp=&ex=1169874000&adxnnl=1&partner=homepage&adxnnlx=1169787938-dclKCc+SyhqP2qvBNfXeQg
January 29th, 2007 at 12:33 pmRocky, my neighbor, hopefully will pursue his mistrust of the bushsh*ter and his sidekick and will lead to IMPEACHMENT.
January 29th, 2007 at 12:43 pmHang on here just a minute – who advised them that warrantless wiretapping was a “legitimate way to protect the country”?? If it was Gonzo, he’s bonzo as his judicial opinions have proven to be faulty and/or bogus. I don’t believe NSA could usurp the constitutional right of the people (or if they evean can by law??) and tell Bushco he can violate people’s constitutional guarantees when there is a NSA protocol already in place…..and this protocol clearly allows wiretapping in advance of a warrant provided that a warrant is applied for within 72 hours….which is a very long time and no reason to have problem with this UNLESS THE WIRETAPPING WOULD BE REJECTED BY NSA AND/OR WOULD BE ON POLITICAL FOES AND INNOCENT CITIZENS!
Why else would they be quaking in their boots right now to get NSA to grant them “after the fact absolution” for something they have been doing which clearly is criminal and in violation of the laws in place for this situation and the constitution of this country?
Could it be because it’s another case, like the rendition of prisons for torture in other countries, where they are scurrying around to cover their guilty arsses?? Presume it!
The number of “high crimes and misdemeanors” is mounting day by day and this corrupt administration will take itself down before long. Wait until Cheney’s “deep involvement” with the outing of a covert CIA agent gets into full disclosure – it’s going to “stink up Penna Avenue” like a garbage barge!!
January 29th, 2007 at 1:07 pm#10…..Let the individuals with proof of the offense prevail! And, they will!!
Let the “whistleblowers” sing, as they have been and we won’t have to wait another two years to see these guys get their just desserts.
January 29th, 2007 at 1:08 pmgonzo is a cronie and was bought and paid for. of course, the supreme court, bushwhacks nuts are going to jingle the right way.
January 29th, 2007 at 1:53 pmshould i say the ‘reich’ way
January 29th, 2007 at 1:54 pmBush repeatedly said that a wiretap requires a warrant while he was getting warrantless wiretaps.
Believing him now is…unwarranted.
January 29th, 2007 at 1:58 pmA quote from David Rockefeller’s autobiography ‘Memoirs’ -
6-11-6
“For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will.
If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”
January 29th, 2007 at 2:03 pmPublicus
Excellent!
January 29th, 2007 at 2:08 pmSurely after the second time Bush made voluntary revealing incriminating witness statements regarding how he first learned about 9/11, all honest Democrats would have asked questions and demanded answers of Bush.
Actually, they all did — It just turns out that THERE ARE NO HONEST DEMOCRATS, as evidenced by the fact that, more than 5 years later, NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM HAS EVER ASKED THE RIGHT QUESTIONS (which is the best way of guaranteeing that they never get the right anwsers, so they never have to do anything about Bush’s treason).
http://911blimp.net/aud_BushImplicatesBush.shtml
So, hearing a Rockefeller say that he can’t trust what ‘they’ are doing is disinformation, for it falsely implies that 1)Rockefeller wouldn’t let “them” get away with anything (ha!), and 2)that we can trust a Rockefeller (ha!).
metanoia – the unreasonable belief that somewhere out there, someone you don’t know is out to do you good
democrat – the other head of the same monster
January 29th, 2007 at 2:19 pmGo to Findlaw.com 1/26/07 and read John Dean’s latest dissection of AG Gonzales’ testimony before the Senate Committee. We all know AG made a fool of himself — Dean explains how it is even worse in a legal sense. Pathetic. Worthy of disbarment at worst, his resignation at best.
January 29th, 2007 at 3:46 pmI’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again…Rockefeller is only realizing all this now?!? Where the hell has he been for the past five-odd years? Under a rock? On a deserted island? (Well, I know he represents West Virginia — but West Virginia only seems like a deserted island, so that doesn’t really count!) OK, OK — he should at least get some credit for saying it, but this doesn’t change the fact that those people who’ve been paying attention have been saying the same thing for years.
January 29th, 2007 at 4:54 pmComment by bs — January 29, 2007 @ 2:03 pm
Thanks for posting that. He may have good intentions in what he does but that doesn’t mean he’s right in advocating a One World Order. At least, not one controlled by banks.
January 29th, 2007 at 6:09 pmWhere was Senator Rockefeller’s oversight of intel back in 2002 when he was head of the Sen Intel Com the last time?
“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
– Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
Was the intelligence that he was responsible for overseeing weak, limited, fabricated? Why didn’t he oversee it then?
When it comes to intel, people believe either Bush lied re 911, Iraq, etc., or they believe what all the investigations have found: weak and limited intel-not fabricated, pressured, etc., but in both cases, up until 2003, it was Sen Rockefeller’s job to make sure the intel communities had what they needed to do their jobs, were doing their jobs, had good leaders, and were providing good intel products.
He didn’t do his job.
Those who believe all those investigations into the Bush Lied theories that claim it was bad intel believe Sen Rockefeller’s just covering his butt. At the very least, L and R should agree that this man failed in his duties which resulted in 911, war in Afghanistan, Iraq, and around the world, and now we’re supposed to trust HIM rather than hold him accountable?
January 30th, 2007 at 7:46 am21- Didn’t you see Rockefeller sucking up to General Casey in the Senate hearings this past week? When are Democrats going to realize Democrat politicians are out to butter their own bread?
February 3rd, 2007 at 8:00 pm