[olefoo]

Wyden & Udall are constrained by their roles within the system; they have both been trying to encourage people to ask the right questions, but they are not going to break the laws they are sworn to uphold.

What we need is an independent congressional commission with the power to unilaterally declassify information that is not directly related to ongoing operations ( i.e. anything naming specific operatives or live intelligence about events now in the field would be exempt. But descriptions of scope, and summary reports of the outcomes of programs would be allowed. ) so that the American public can get an idea of what is being done in it's name.

This commission to include in it's scope psychological warfare operations and propaganda directed at American audiences. And a full investigation of any information sharing regarding American citizens with other agencies of the Executive branch.

We need this now. These stains on our nations honor can only be cleaned by sunlight.

[jnbiche]

Just to be clear, the only thing that Udall and Wyden are actually sworn to is this oath:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

[samstave]

I am just curious, what is the difference, in relation to that oath, between "swear" and "affirm" (under which circumstance would one be affirming and not swearing and vice-versa)?

[nkurz]

If permitted, one might 'affirm' if one's religious belief prohibits 'swearing oaths': "But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation."

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/James-5-12/

I'm nonreligious, but agree with this position, as the alternative would imply that lying should be expected in all cases where no oath is sworn. Here's one small, specific, interesting piece of the history of offering an alternative: http://www.northcarolinahistory.org/commentary/161/entry

[mentat]

They swore other oaths when getting clearances to be sure.

[jnbiche]

It turns out you're half right. I knew congressmen didn't have to undergo security clearances. But it turns out that starting in the 104th congress (1997-1999), they are required to swear a secrecy oath.

I still think the oath to the constitution is far more important to the integrity of our country, but I was wrong that they swore no other oath.

[mentat]

Funny that I still got down voted for disagreeing. Ah, the new HN.