Senators CLAIM Their Votes On Key Issues Are "CLASSIFIED"

[Segami]

For Congress, ‘it’s classified’ is new equivalent of ‘none of your business’

WASHINGTON — The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence reportedly gave its approval last week to an Obama administration plan to provide weapons to moderate rebels in Syria, but how individual members of the committee stood on the subject remains unknown. There was no public debate and no public vote when one of the most contentious topics in American foreign policy was decided – outside of the view of constituents, who oppose the president’s plan to aid the rebels by 54 percent to 37 percent, according to a Gallup Poll last month. In fact, ask individual members of the committee, who represent 117 million people in 14 states, how they stood on the plan to use the CIA to funnel weapons to the rebels and they are likely to respond with the current equivalent of “none of your business:” It’s classified.



Those were, in fact, the words Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., chair of the committee, used when asked a few days before the approval was granted to clarify her position for her constituents. She declined. It’s a difficult situation, she said. And, “It’s classified.” She was not alone. In a string of interviews over days, members of both the Senate intelligence committee or its equivalent in the House were difficult to pin down on their view of providing arms to the rebels. The senators and representatives said they couldn’t give an opinion, or at least a detailed one, because the matter was classified. It’s an increasingly common stance that advocates of open government say undermines the very principle of a representative democracy.



“It’s like a pandemic in Washington, D.C., this idea that ‘I don’t have to say anything, I don’t have to justify anything, because I can say it’s secret,’” said Jim Harper, director of information policy studies at the Cato Institute, a Washington-based libertarian think tank. “Classified” has become less a safeguard for information and more a shield from accountability on tough subjects, said Steven Aftergood, the director of the Federation of American Scientists’ Project on Government Secrecy. “Classification can be a convenient pretext for avoiding difficult questions,” he said. “There’s a lot that can be said about Syria without touching on classified, including a statement of general principles, a delineation of possible military and diplomatic options, and a preference for one or the other of them. So to jump to ‘national security secrecy’ right off the bat looks like an evasion.”



Syria is not the only topic where public debate has been the exception because a matter was classified. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., spoke last week about the frustration he felt because he could not tell his constituents that he believed secret rulings from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court had expanded the collection of telephone and Internet data far beyond what many in Congress thought they had authorized. “Months and years went in to trying to find ways to raise public awareness about secret surveillance authorities within the confines of classification rules,” Wyden said at the Center for American Progress, a liberal Washington think tank. Had it not been for a leak of a secret court order on the collection of cellphone metadata by former National Security Agency contract worker Edward Snowden, the program might still be beyond discussion, Wyden noted. But the classification barrier may not be as watertight as committee members make it out to be. Senate Resolution 400, which established the intelligence committee in 1976, has a section specifically devoted to committee oversight of the classification system, which is directed by the executive branch. If a member of the committee feels that classified information is of valid public interest, he or she can ask that it be declassified.


cont'


http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/07/30/198097/for-congress-its-classified-is.html#.UfkT8Rbq7oV

[Kelvin Mace]

1. We are a police state

Why do people keep arguing this point with me when the evidence is as clear and compelling?

[Heather MC]

19. I think the constitution was used as toilet paper and flushed years ago

[Kelvin Mace]

53. The Republic died in the aftermath of 9/11

It's fate was cemented by the Vichy Democrats who refused to filibuster Roberts and Alito, thus turning over the SCOTUS to the corporate oligarchs. While we may get the occasional win on things like DOMA, liberal policies are doomed for the next 20-30 years. Civil liberties will become extinct.

[Dustin DeWinde]

61. sounds like wishful thinking on your part.

Interesting that you place all blame on democrats.
You blame dems for not filibustering Roberts and Alito, but place no blame on Bush for nominating them in the first place. Nor do you place blame on gop senators who actually confirmed them. You refuse to even blame Alito and Roberts themselves for being reactionary.

You fool only those who want to be fooled. Most folks recognize reality and your "blameless" gop will lose the House in next years elections.

[Kelvin Mace]

64. I expected Bush to nominate lunatics

and tools. I also expect Dems to OPPOSE them. They didn't.

Why am I REQUIRED to blame rabid dogs for being rabid? Why am I getting grief for pointing our the people who enable rabid dogs?

I hardly hold the GOP blameless, their guilt is bloody obvious, so I don't feel the need to bring it up.

I certainly hope the GOP will lose the House, but as long as Dems keep bailing them out with grand bargain offers and secret tax deals, that isn't going to happen.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/30/us-usa-obama-idUSBRE96T0F820130730
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-07-25/congress-will-keep-senators-tax-reform-wishes-secret-for-50-years

Also, again, thanks to the SCOTUS, voting laws are now returning to the Jim Crow era, which means it will be far easier for the GOP to hold their grip on power.

By the way, I resent the accusation that I am engaging in "wishful thinking" just because I state the reality of the situation. As long as people keep making excuses for the bad actors on our side, we will continue to slide into irrelevance.

[bvar22]

77. Well Done!!!

DURec for post # by Kelvin Mace.

I also expect DOGS to be DOGS.

I do NOT send MONEY to Republicans.
I do NOT support Republicans.
I do NOT GOTV for Republicans.
I do NOT vote for Republicans.
I do NOT expect to have a VOICE in the Republican Party.
Why should the Republicans listen to me?

I DO send money to Democrats.
I DO support the Democratic Party.
I DO GOTV for Democrats.
I VOTE for Democrats.
I convince others to VOTE for Democrats.
I have done this loyally for 47 YEARS for the Democratic Party.

I EXPECT Democrats to act like Democrats.
When they act like REPUBLICANS,
or concede to Republicans BEFORE the FIGHT,
or when they "compromise" needlessly with Republicans,
or when they waste time by "Seeking Bi-Partisan Consensus" needlessly,
or when they appoint REPUBLICANS to positions of great POWER in the Executive & Judicial Branches,
I WILL make my disappointment KNOWN.

I can't "change" the Republican Party,
and it would be a waste of my time to try.
I think they are PERFECT just exactly as they are now.

But I FOR DAMNED SURE am entitled by 47 years of MY activism and support FOR the Democratic Party to express my disappointment and strong OPPOSITION to traditional Republican Policy and "Free Market" trickle down Economics.

Those who don't agree that I have this right and privilege EVERY SINGLE DAY,
can kiss my wrinkled, old Democratic Party Donkey A**!!!


[font color=firebrick size=3][center]"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone[/font][/center]
[center][/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]

[font size=5 color=firebrick]Solidarity![/font]

[Fearless]

85. +10000!

[Enthusiast]

93. Beauty post! nt

[Kelvin Mace]

106. It is sad we have to spell this out

Even sadder we have our integrity questioned for daring to expect people we support to STOP fraternizing with the enemy.

[cui bono]

81. +1 Well said.

[Dustin DeWinde]

87. so republicans are not responsible for their actions?

Whenever a teabagger does something wrong should we just blame dems for not stopping them? What kind of nonsense is that?

By your logic should we not convict criminals but just blame the police for not stopping them?
That's cowardice you don't want to fight the ones who are committing offenses but sit back and moan that others aren't stopping them.

Or more likely you are yourself a rightwinger trying desperately to cast blame anywhere else but at your own party.


As for the rabid dog analogy, that's patently ridiculous. We put down rabid dogs surely you aren't suggesting violence against fellow Americans.

In free societies we don't dehumanize fellow citizens and we don't pretend that they are excused from bad behavior and that its someone else's fault for not stopping them

Maybe you agree with the whole teabag nonsense of racial supremacy, or maybe you agree with other aspects of their agenda. Don't know don't care. But when you seek to blame others for wingnut actions in a public forum decent folks will call you out. That's American free speech in action.

By the way when was the last time you voted dem?

[Caretha]

96. You have a lot of

nerve to ask a DU member who has been here since 2003 - "By the way when was the last time you voted dem?", Especially since you have been a member of DU a year.

By the way when was the last time you rec'd a Democratic Underground post?

[Kelvin Mace]

107. Where did I say

Republicans are not responsible for their actions? Please point that sentence out to me.

By your logic should we not convict criminals but just blame the police for not stopping them?
That's cowardice you don't want to fight the ones who are committing offenses but sit back and moan that others aren't stopping them.

Uh, no. I expect criminals to be criminals. I expect the law enforcement to arrest them and the judicial system to punish them. This in no way means I am not allowed to criticize either group for abusing its power, or colluding with criminals to make deals which advance their careers. (See Whitey Bulger)

As for the rabid dog analogy, that's patently ridiculous. We put down rabid dogs surely you aren't suggesting violence against fellow Americans.

You are really going out of your way to twist my analogy. I expect people to live up to their nature, that was my point, nothing else. I do not advocate violence against anyone.The rabid dog comparison is apt in that you cannot reason with a rabid dog. Anyone who tries is a fool.

In free societies we don't dehumanize fellow citizens and we don't pretend that they are excused from bad behavior and that its someone else's fault for not stopping them

Really? What "free society" do you live in? I can flip on Fox News at any moment of the day and see it done 24x7.

It IS the fault of the people we supported and voted for when they REFUSE to stop the illegal and destructive behavior of the very groups and people they were elected to stop. A policeman that my taxes hire is subject to my criticism when he fails to do the job he was hired to do. The DA who cuts deals rather than prosecutes criminals, or who selectively prosecutes some crimes while ignoring others is also a LEGITIMATE target for censure.

Maybe you agree with the whole teabag nonsense of racial supremacy, or maybe you agree with other aspects of their agenda. Don't know don't care. But when you seek to blame others for wingnut actions in a public forum decent folks will call you out. That's American free speech in action.

Oh, so now you are insinuating that I am a racist teabagger? How very mature. I have been around this site far longer than you and have a long track record establishing my liberal bona fides. I don't have to defend my liberal cred to a clueless newbie.

By the way when was the last time you voted dem?

Not that it is any of your freakin' business, but I have voted Dem in every election since Carter in 1980 when I was first eligible to vote. I did vote for a Republican superior court judge once, but that was back in the day when there were actually sane Republicans and her Dem opponent was being investigated judicial misconduct.

[Dustin DeWinde]

111. so since you were posting on this site

Before I was perhaps when you post I should metaphorically step off the sidewalk and make no comment at all even though its a free forum. That is never gonna happen no matter how uppity it may seem to you free people will speak their minds. And not all will agree with you. Get over it.

When you keep going back to the rabid dog analogy, you are indeed saying rwingers are not responsible. A 'boys will be boys' type of thing.

Gopers trying to suppress Black votes? Boys will be boys, but damn those dems for not fighting tooth and nail for whatever dilletente cause is in vogue at the moment. Is that it?


Well nuts to that. In your post you mention you watch fox news, why am I not suprised?
As for questioning whether this is a free society you have got to be kidding. The USA remains the freest society in the world. Despite our many imperfections. And contrary to what your post seems to suggest we are more free than ever. Or maybe you think our society was more free and more just when racial minorities and women couldn't vote.
Or maybe you just think think the country is going to hell in a handbasket because one of THEM is in the Whitehouse.
And by them I mean skinny
left handed Harvard guys. Because I'm ever so sure that there's nothing else about this president that a fair open minded liberal like yourself could possibly have a built in bias about.

[Kelvin Mace]

114. Seriously, now you are trolling

You are deliberately pulling words out of context.

In your post you mention you watch fox news, why am I not suprised?

Actually, here was the exchange:

You: "In free societies we don't dehumanize fellow citizens..."

Me: "Really? What "free society" do you live in? I can flip on Fox News at any moment of the day and see it done 24x7."

I simply stated your statement was false. To prove it false, all I said I had to do was turn on Fox News and I would see people "dehumanize fellow citizens" 24x7. Nowhere can you construe that I make a habit of watching Fox News, yet you deliberately did so.

As you are a troll our conversation is done.

[Enthusiast]

92. Exactly. The guilt of the GOP goes without saying.

They stole the 2,000 election, faked up 911, lied us into the Iraq War and stole the 2004 election.

We know what they did.

That was all the more reason for the Democrats to fight to the death to stop them.

[Champion Jack]

101. Rec

[awoke_in_2003]

78. I actually the republic died 22NOV1963...

it just took a while for the corpse to start stinking. After this, the MIC and Wall Street started flexing their muscles.

[Enthusiast]

94. These malefactors grew bold after the collapse of the Soviet Union......nt

[awoke_in_2003]

110. We need an enemy...

Too bad the enemy is now us.

[Enthusiast]

124. Little doubt about that.........nt

[Enthusiast]

90. Bush v Gore.....

Great post. I like the term Vichy Democrats because that is precisely what they were and remain.

[RC]

32. As long as we do not have Check Points at major intersections or on streets crossing

common city limits/state lines, between cities, many will deny this country being a Police State, or even anything close to one.

[Kelvin Mace]

36. Hmmm

We have check points set up all the time. They call them "sobriety check points"

There are security check points at airports, train stations, bus stations, government buildings. More are coming.

[RC]

37. OooKeee. Forgot about those.

I was thinking more along the lines of WWII Germain controlled parts of Europe.

[Kelvin Mace]

45. If you get stopped by the police

for being the wrong skin tone and your papers are not in order, you are going to have a rough time.

Daniel Chong, who was rounded up along with eight other people in an April 21, 2012, drug raid at a San Diego area home, has said that he was forced to drink his own urine and nearly died after being placed in the cell and apparently forgotten.

After the ordeal, the 24-year-old student of the University of California, San Diego, spent five days in a San Diego hospital, three of them in intensive care.

Chong's lawyers have said that he was arrested at the home of friend during a raid by a drug enforcement task force investigating an ecstasy trafficking ring that included DEA agents, sheriff's deputies and San Diego police officers.

Iredale said that once authorities determined Chong was not part of the ring, a San Diego police officer put him in the 5-foot by 10-foot cell with his hands cuffed behind his back, telling him, "We'll come to get you in a minute."

Instead, Chong remained in the cell for four and a half days and by the time he was found he was suffering from severe dehydration, muscle deterioration, hallucinations, liver and kidney failure and extremely high levels of sodium, according to his attorneys. He lost 15 pounds during the ordeal.

http://www.businessinsider.com/student-jailed-without-food-water-settlement-2013-7

Also, if you count "proxy" searches and check points where the Fatherland/Motherland/Homeland Stasi uses private corporations to do its searches, we are constantly running into "check points"

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/07/tsa-car-searches-airport-fourth-amendment

[HardTimes99]

57. Police repression exists in varying degrees dependent upon and highly correlated

with class and race. I prefer to use the phrase 'quasi-police state,' as the real deal would not countenance calling it out by name online or in published form without disappearing those brave enough to call it by its name.

What will be fascinating will be watching Detroit's police forces as the municipal bankruptcy proceeds to gut even their pensions and benefits. Will they continue to serve as the 1%'s goon squad or will they instead start to serve as the tip of the spear for the 99%?

[Kelvin Mace]

58. I don't believe in mincing words

The police are flat out working for the 1%, and will do as they are told, regardless of "legality".

http://www.salon.com/2013/07/28/louisiana_police_use_invalid_anti_sodomy_law_to_arrest_gay_men_for_agreeing_to_consensual_sex/

[Katashi_itto]

112. They will continue to work as long as they have the perception they will

get scraps from the tables of their masters.

It when that perception shifts to reality, thats when all bets are off. But thats a long way off.

[HardTimes99]

118. May be closer than we think. I saw reports today that Orr, the Detroit

bankruptcy manager appointed by the Governor, had arbitrarily cut police and fire department salaries by 10% without so much as a by-your-leave to the collective bargaining units.

[Katashi_itto]

119. Man I hope it's closer.

I hope Detroit is the spark.

[HardTimes99]

120. What I'd like to see is the Detroit Police Department arrest Orr on the charge

of 'fraud' against the citizens of Detroit.

Probably won't happen but I would pay good money I don't have to see it.

[Katashi_itto]

121. oh that would be good

[dlwickham]

59. and you can choose not to drive when the check points are announced

which they generally are

you can avoid flying, train stations, bus stations, etc

if you don't like something, don't put yourself in a situation to do it

seems pretty simple

[Cal Carpenter]

60. Sure, especially if check points are on your way to work

or to visit a dying parent in a hospital, or just plain unannounced.

Seems pretty simple, sure. You are defending the indefensible, it is as simple as that.

[hueymahl]

65. WTF???

Are you serious? I sure as god hope not.

[CubicleGuy]

67. Announced?

I consider myself to be fairly aware of the check point announcements in my area, and unless you're actively looking for them, you're not going to hear about them. Sometimes the locations as announced aren't very specific, so it becomes a guessing game.

[Kelvin Mace]

108. Right, but then I live in the real world

Where I cannot read every newspaper or listen to every newscast to see where the police are abusing their authority next.

And if you try to avoid a check point after you spot it, you get a about two squad cars on your ass to see what you have to hide.

To conduct my life I must travel public roads, or use public transportation of some sort. To claim I can avoid it is simply naive and unrealistic.

[Coyotl]

127. Today, you have checkpoints at all the routers, not the real pathways.

Because at major intersections you have license plate readers, video cameras, and radio frequency readers.

Actually stopping people is old-fashioned and might impede commerce

[RC]

128. You are correct. Why have actual check points when one person sitting at a A/C console miles away

can do the same thing as dozens or hundreds of dozens of cops/paramilitary standing in the hot sun or cold rain/snow asking for your papers.

[Harmony Blue]

35. I agree

Democracy has to be mostly transparent.

[Zorra]

66. And we are only in the early stages. nt

[Kelvin Mace]

69. Actually, I am rather amazed at how overt it has been

in the last decade.

We are pretty far along:

Massive illegal surveillance "normalized"
Kidnapping
Torture
Assassination
War crimes
Violent suppression of dissidents

[Zorra]

84. Sadly, I'm afraid that what you pointed out is just the beginning.

Imagine what will happen under the next republican administration, when they build upon the foundation of the examples you posted.

[bvar22]

113. And we have NO OPPOSITION PARTY!

Who do you vote FOR if you are AGAINST this shit?

[Kelvin Mace]

116. Yet another problem

If one takes a moral stand and refuses to vote for "the lesser of two evils" (which people seem to forget still has you voting FOR evil) you are attacked by the "pragmatics". I am getting it in this thread from a jackass deliberately misreading my words and implying I am a racist and watch Fox News (if I were to meet this git in person, I would be tempted to slap him with my riding gloves and demand swords at dawn for such a slur).

[JDPriestly]

88. When our elected representatives are not allowed to tell us how they voted on important

national issues, how are we supposed to know who to vote for? How are we supposed to decide whether those representatives are representing us or some other interests?

And yes, when our elected representatives cannot tell us how they voted on important issues for fear of being imprisoned or killed or silenced by some other means, then we are living in a police state. And who in the world appointed the police that run the show? It wasn't Obama. He got most of the crew from George W. Bush. The crew stays on from one administration to the next. That is another fact that supports your premise that we are a police state. The real authorities are not our elected officials but those unelected officials who decide what is secret and what is not. Obama appoints the head of the NSA and a few deputies, but aren't most of the people at the NSA bureaucrats, and aren't they the ones making these decisions? Or does Obama want to take credit for silencing our members of Congress?

[Kelvin Mace]

109. Obama's sin is not that he created a police state

it is that he perpetuates the one created by BushCo.

[Enthusiast]

91. It is clear and compelling...nt

[MNBrewer]

2. Soon, they'll be voting in secret on secret laws

and when we violate these secret laws, we'll secretly be taken to a secret location, tried in secret and held in a secret location for some secret amount of time.

[hobbit709]

4. Exactly!

[antiquie]

10. What do you mean, soon?

Thought this was already a fact.

[MNBrewer]

13. The pieces are all in place, I don't think they're efficiently connected yet, though

The ACLU still exists, and there are still a few reporters who will stand up to the State.

[antiquie]

14. Lack of governmental efficiency

maybe what saves us in the end.

[heaven05]

18. and

if charges are serious enough.......

[sofa king]

42. Soon? That's how we started.

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwej.html

The Journal of the Senate Executive Proceedings was not made public until nearly 40 years after the Constitution was ratified.

Any time the Senate wanted to pull the wool over the eyes of the public, they would jump into an executive session, have the proceedings of that session reduced to an uninformative sentence in a secret journal never intended to be seen, and do whatever the hell they wanted.

Just like today.

[TransitJohn]

100. And then you'll never get out, or you'll know the secret. eom

n/t

[Berlum]

3. Occult Government, Inc.

[Scuba]

5. Secret government, secret laws, secret courts, secret spying ... what a democracy.

[Segami]

6. These prima-donna Senators walk around like Mafia Dons.

They claim this is a world of THEIR OWN!

[global1]

17. Just Curious - Has Al Franken Been Brainwashed?.......

Is he one of them now? We don't hear much about him or from him. I'm wondering if he is laying low and keeping quiet because he is preparing for a re-election bid? Is he going to come out of his self-imposed cloister on the national scene if he wins a second term in the Senate? Does he still feel like he is not taken seriously because he was a comedian and is waiting to prove that he is for real - when he wins a second term? Is he just biding his time and will come out if he wins re-election? or has he gone over to the other side?

[Kelvin Mace]

38. Al was on record a few weeks ago

saying that the NSA wasn't spying on us:

“I can assure you, this is not about spying on the American people,” Franken told Minneapolis-based CBS affiliate WCCO. The junior Minnesota senator, who's only been in the Senate since 2009, said he was “was very well aware of" the surveillance programs and was not surprised by a recent slate of bombshell reports by both The Guardian and The Washington Post.

“I have a high level of confidence that this is used to protect us and I know that it has been successful in preventing terrorism,” Franken said.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/al-franken-defends-nsa-surveillance-this-is-not

Al is also in the pocket of Hollywood on copyright issues, siding with the MPAA and the RIAA against the "fair use" doctrine and in favor of SOPA/PIPA (he is a PIPA co-sponsor)

http://projects.propublica.org/sopa/F000457.html

[AnotherMcIntosh]

55. Oh, good. Now I feel better. Thank you Al.

[bvar22]

117. Al Franken has ALWAYS been a "moderate".

Even back when he was headlining Air America he was a mild "Centrist".
He said "funny" negative stuff about the Bush Administration, but never advocated for traditional Democratic Party Values of FDR, or LIBERAL Values.
He WAS and IS a Follow-the-Leader Democrat.

He will do what he is told to do by the people with Money & Power.

[Kelvin Mace]

123. Agreed

Sad to say that the Overton Window has shifted so far to the right that centrists like Franken seem "liberal" by comparison.

But then again, Nixon and Reagan would be considered Commies by today's GOP.

[bvar22]

125. Even Reagan is to the LEFT of the Democratic Party leadership on some BIG issues.

Is THIS to much to expect from a Democrat?

[leftyohiolib]

7. not surprising coming from di-fi

[JEB]

8. Unknown unknowables

is not a foundation for democracy.

[n2doc]

9. Eventually they will say that their elections are secret too

We can't know the results. They will just inform the populace when the election is over.


Vote them out. Anyone who does this, D or R, vote them out and make sure everyone knows that this is a big reason why. It will be the only way to stop this madness.

[bvar22]

115. Easily manupuilated Black Box Voting Machines and Central Tabulators...

...with the "results" reported by a tame Media?

Mail In Voting with NO "Exit Polls".
"Trust Us", we'll tell you who won!"


Elections here ARE already pretty much a "secret".

[think]

11. Fuck that noise! They are public servants. Not royalty!

[N_E_1 for Tennis]

30. They are corporate servants, Think

[think]

31. Doh!

[bluedigger]

12. That's ridiculous.

Completely unacceptable.

[rocktivity]

15. Hey, can what I pay in taxes be classified, too?

rocktivity

[Segami]

16. LOL!

[wordpix]

41. I think we should all classify our salaries since we're paying THEIRS

and right now, I don't want to pay someone who hides his/her performance and is unaccountable for his/hervotes

[caseymoz]

20. I'm glad my national security is so well protected

by secrecy classifications. I'd like to find out how the Senate determined member votes were a matter of national defense, but I'm sure that dossier's classified as well.

[Coyotl]

21. Aiding rebels is illegal. It is a clear violation of international law.

[GiaGiovanni]

122. Back in the 80s, they had to do it secretly

But since no one was really punished for Iran Contra, it's now in our faces and we can do nothing.

[Coyotl]

126. They may be doing a lot in secret because it is illegal -- CIA stuff, working around the laws

or finding ways to achieve the ends anyway, often with tactics that could not stand the scrutiny of laws.

[bobduca]

22. Dianne Feinstein takes her oversight role very seriously (to the bank)

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/Feinstein-s-16-5-million-view-in-Pacific-Heights-2523619.php

[wordpix]

43. I wonder how much she pays the gardener for that front garden alone

She obviously lives like lord of the manor and does not want to tell us peons what she's doing with the salary we pay her.

[Jackpine Radical]

46. I think there's enough money floating around DiFi & her mobster husband

that her salary is sorta irrelevant.

[Segami]

49. +1

[Bluenorthwest]

105. She's worth about 70 million and still takes her salary and that is relevant

she could use it to fund a scholarship or any number of things, but she adds it to the Great Pile.

[Fumesucker]

129. Pays?

More like how much graft is she getting from the landscaping company.

At that level people do a lot of favors for each other, I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine and everyone comes out with their itch scratched.

[Segami]

76. My, my...it pays to be a Senator, regardless of which stripe.

[City Lights]

23. Such cowards.

Fuck them.

[nolabels]

29. +1

[Gidney N Cloyd]

24. What would happen to a US Senator if he or she openly discussed classified information?

[bobduca]

25. I've read that they are told it's treason to divulge info from closed top secret hearings.

I've heard that the senators are read the consequences of divulging information on these closed hearings, and that they are told it amounts to treason. I suspect that's the executive branch's lawyers trying to ensure congressional oversight is just a rubber stamp.

Maybe they'd use the espionage act... just a wild uneducated guess, they seem pretty eager to charge everyone with that heinous law.

[Segami]

26. "..Charge everyone with that heinous law...".......but themselves!

[Gidney N Cloyd]

27. Would that also include reading it into the congressional record?

[Broward]

28. How the hell is this a functioning democracy anymore?

[NuclearDem]

33. If what you've done is so shameful you have to hide behind "it's classified"

Then you shouldn't have done it.

[WillyT]

34. K & R !!!

[Marr]

39. What possible argument could be made for classifying a vote?

I expect it's the old, "so we can vote our conscience without concern for politics", which is only a way of saying, "so we can service monied interests without worrying about what the stupid plebes (who are paying for all of it) think".

[wordpix]

40. "a shield from accountability" ---DiFi, that goes for you, too

We pay their salaries and they hide what they do on the job.

No other employers would stand for that

[LiberalEsto]

44. They should also get their paychecks in secret --

so secret that the senators are unable to access them.

[gtar100]

47. A sign that they know what they are doing is wrong.

If they had any conviction behind their actions, they would say so. But they don't.

[UtahLib]

48. Apparently,

the revised definition of classified is also classified. Finally our reps are openly and blantantly expressing what most of us have suspected for a very long time. The contempt they harbor for their lowly subjects, we the people, could not be more evident.

[nadinbrzezinski]

50. This is exactly how total states act

[reformist2]

51. This NSA, CIA, "secrecy-state" garbage has gone way too far.

[Safetykitten]

52. Well, if you are an ass-kissing NSA person...this is so logical.

[Swede Atlanta]

54. We are so totally fucked......

I do believe that the PNAC folks used their contrived 9-11 and Iraq Wars to introduce this state for the benefit of their paymasters.

Once government was secret they could do anything to screw us, take our money, etc. without anyone ever knowing as long as those involved were paid well. Well the paymasters continue to pay them really well to keep them quiet (i.e. hush money). It is illegal but as long as it is secret and we don't know it is going on, we have no evidence.

We are at a crossroads in this country. Obama means well and he has been a welcome relief from the scum on the right but he is the same old record of executive power and government secrecy.

We will have to unite with the Tea Party to take back our country. We may be doing it for different reasons or views but the objective is to wrest power from the corrupt, immoral and powerful.

This will never happen in my lifetime but I wish the rest of you the very best..

[hueymahl]

56. VERY Impressed so far

Not a single authoritarian has posted defending this horse hockey.

Now, if Obama had done this, my guess is his proxies/defenders would already be here in full force. Speaking of which, this is an ideal opportunity for him to come out strongly against such tactics.

[midnight]

62. Hmm. I guess we shouldn't worry about matters that are none of our business....

[TheKentuckian]

63. Utterly unacceptable. Time to reload the entire system.

[burnodo]

68. Moderate rebels?

Do we know which "rebels" are moderate and which aren't?

And isn't it funny we refer to these people as rebels? If we didn't like what they were doing, they'd be called terrorists.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

70. Politboro?

[chimpymustgo]

71. Scary and indefensible. Secret laws, secrets prisons, secrets votes, secret courts. Some democracy.

[felix_numinous]

72. Well obviously The People are not in the same class

--we are not members in the exclusive club. The list of things we cannot be privy to gets longer and longer.

This equation between government and citizenry has become so unbalanced as to have become a mockery of what it once was.

[emsimon33]

73. Proof again: There is no accountability in Washington (or Wall Street)

[liberal_at_heart]

74. time to clean house. We need to make Congress a revolving door.

Don't serve the people. You're out.

[Mnemosyne]

75. And the horse they stole to ride in on... nt

[Beartracks]

79. Sure, yeah, that's EXACTLY what the Founding Fathers had in mind.

======================

[avaistheone1]

86. +1

[blkmusclmachine]

80. POLICE STATE

[DeSwiss]

82. How much more proof is needed?

K&R

[center][/center]

[limpyhobbler]

83. wow that's messed up. Everybody grab yer pitchforks and lets go. nt

[Enthusiast]

89. This is grounds for major uprising.

Essentially any actions by the regular American citizens in response to such an outrage would be entirely justifiable.

[99Forever]

95. The darkness closes in.

Look to the horizon and see the impending storm.

[Waiting For Everyman]

97. So their votes are a matter of national security, eh?

How, exactly? Do they think terrorists give a damn how they vote?

It's the most bloviated bullshit I've heard in quite a while.

[tclambert]

98. Sorry, you're not allowed to know how your public servants serve you. That's private.

I'm getting so dizzy. Make the spinning stop!

[Progressive dog]

99. Yup, says "a Washington-based libertarian think tank."

Who would have thought our government would keep secrets even from Koch brothers founded think tanks.

[Junkdrawer]

102. Did you expect them to arm al Queda in public?

The hypocrisy of arming al Queda in Syria and then dragging Manning over the coals because someone in al Queda may have read WikiLeaks online just blows my mind.

[treestar]

103. Under what program or situation?

Is this something that goes to the full Senate? Or something the law gives them to do? It makes no sense that a committee in the Senate can "approve" something the President wants to do. Unless some law assigns it to them. If so, what are the terms of that law?

[librechik]

104. grab your passport and run, or sit down and pass the popcorn. It's over.

and all we are allowed to do is observe.