A Veritable Book of Revelation(s)

The revelations just keep coming and coming.
The Washington Post today reports that the congressional acquiescence to administration policy dates to at least 2002. In this particular instance, the issue involved the CIA's interrogation program. The bipartisan group of four members (one of whom is current Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi), according to the paper, did not object to what they learned in the briefing. Two (whom the Post doesn't name) of the four "asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said. 'The briefer was specifically asked if the methods were tough enough,' said a U.S. official who witnessed the exchange."
Far from objecting to the questionable legality and ethics of what they witnessed, we have--again--an early indication of congressional complicity with administration policies:

"Individual lawmakers' recollections of the early briefings varied dramatically, but officials present during the meetings described the reaction as mostly quiet acquiescence, if not outright support. 'Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing,' said [Porter] Goss, who chaired the House intelligence committee from 1997 to 2004 and then served as CIA director from 2004 to 2006. 'And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement.'

One of the defenses members of Congress offers on matters like this is that they're sworn to rules of secrecy that prohibit "them from being able to take notes or consult legal experts or members of their own staffs."
And this is surely one of the issues that constrains effective oversight. Who determines--and why and when--the contours of these secrecy obligations? What if, as with the issues regarding waterboarding and FISA violations, members of Congress witness or secretly learn of such violations? Are they then prohibited from exercising their oversight responsibilities? Whom, exactly, do they serve? The executive branch or the Constitution?

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), a member of both the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees, spoke on the Senate floor on Friday about FISA violations, illegal wiretapping of Americans, and "the so-called Protect America Act, a second-rate piece of legislation passed in a stampede in August at the behest of the Bush Administration." The critical thrust of the speech, however, was that the Bush Administration's belief in its prerogative to decide what powers it possesses and what laws it might or might not obey (thus, ironically or otherwise, encroaching on the powers and obligations of the legislative and judicial branches).

There is much legal debate about the powers of the presidency and what might constitute presidential overreach. The questions, however, go beyond the parameters of executive authority. Are those powers so vast that the other branches of government must concede them and thus abdicate their own responsibilities? What we're witnessing by Congress is a history of malfeasance, of frank disregard for the obligations and duties required of that branch of government by the Constitution.