I'm furious at the House Democrats.

[stevedeshazer]

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hJKgeE0Z-SivATjok-utYBdh9wDwD8VCRM1G0

<snip>

House to Close Its Doors for Spying Bill

By PAMELA HESS – 1 hour ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — House Democratic leaders agreed Thursday to a rare closed-door session — the first in 25 years — to debate surveillance legislation.

Republicans requested privacy for what they termed "an honest debate" on the new Democratic eavesdropping bill that is opposed by the White House and most Republicans in Congress.

The closed-door debate was scheduled for late Thursday night, after the House chamber could be cleared and swept by security personnel to make sure there are no listening devices.

The last private session in the House was in 1983 on U.S. support for paramilitary operations in Nicaragua. Only five closed sessions have taken place in the House since 1825.

President Bush vowed to veto the House Democrats' version of the terrorist surveillance bill, saying it would undermine the nation's security.

House leaders said they would vote on the bill Friday, just before taking a two-week recess. The bill would then have to be approved by the Senate.

Bush opposes it in part because it doesn't provide full, retroactive legal protection to telecommunications companies that helped the government eavesdrop on their customers without court permission after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

</snip>

We the People deserve to know the TRUTH. This is OUR country.

Isn't it?

[ThomWV]

1. Kick and completely recommend

[annabanana]

2. If the House caves after this session I will be

FURIOUS

[Selatius]

3. Your country hasn't been yours since JFK, RFK, and MLK were all killed. n/t

[stevedeshazer]

13. Yeah. *sigh*

I know.

[selador]

55. RFK?

ironic that you bring RFK up in regards to domestic spying

y'know project mockingbird and all that...

not saying that RFK quite "wrote the book" on domestic spying, but he was certainly a major player

ironic that he is mentioned in the way you did

[OwnedByFerrets]

4. The serfs deserve nothing more than the crumbs they get

from the Kings table.:sarcasm:

[Democrats_win]

5. Hey Congress: It's the economy stupid. It's big business screwing us over! Get with it!

Our enemies are at the FED, on Wall Street and in the boardrooms of the banks. While congress debates this nonsense, the FEd and the bankers are ripping us off!

If the Dems aren't going to do anything to help Americans then get the F out of town!

[Breeze54]

22. Read Post # 16

[ReadTomPaine]

6. They were eavesdropping long before 9/11 - that's public record already...

yet AP still continues to print otherwise.

[noise]

50. The whole program comes down to

the notion that Bush has acted in good faith. The fact that warrantless spying started before 9/11 is a pretty good indication that the good faith concept is garbage. The other key issue is in regards to the Bush administration's conduct in the lead up to 9/11. High ranking officials were derelict in their duty yet after the attacks the public was told the only way to prevent more attacks was by giving Bush the crutch of police state powers and tactics. Counterterrorism policy based on fearmongering and propaganda is absurd.

[asdjrocky]

7. We watched the whole thing happen on the span-

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3004694

I'll be surprised, and pissed, if they come back and change the bill. More than a few Dem's stood up and questioned Roy Blunt, until he admitted that there was nothing new to really talk about, and he just wanted to have a discussion.

The story here, while factual, is pretty sparse.

[Breeze54]

8. This was discussed last month and the Progressive Caucus requested it.

The reason being that they wanted ALL the members to know what they were voting about
and in order to do that, they wanted a group session explaining what it was about so
that everyone will be on the same page with the same classified info. and when
they all knew exactly what it entailed that they all would be inclined to not pass it.
They requested a 'closed session' because the discussion and presentation will include
classified information.

[Breeze54]

16. Here's the article---> Liberal House Democrats are pushing for a closed session to discuss surv. pro

Liberal House Democrats are pushing for a closed session to discuss the legal underpinnings
of President Bush’s intelligence surveillance program.

http://www.zimbio.com/go/http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/liberal-dems-seek-secret-fisa-session-2008-02-26.html

They believe that the more members know about it, the less likely they will be to support Bush’s wish to make it permanent.

“I haven’t heard anything in closed session that makes me think we need the Protect America Act,”
said Rep. Rush Holt (D-N.J.), an Intelligence Committee member, referring to a White House-backed
interim wiretapping bill that lapsed this month. “Or that FISA (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act), with modest modifications, isn’t the way to go into the future.”

The request for the closed session came in a letter coauthored by Holt and Reps. John Tierney
(D-Mass.) and Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). Holt refused to confirm
the letter, but other Democrats say it was brought up at Tuesday’s Democratic Caucus meeting.

The three want all members allowed to see documents that outline the administration’s legal
opinions on the program. So far, only Intelligence and Judiciary Committee members have been
allowed to see them.

The three believe it is impractical to have all members go to the secure offices of the Intelligence
Committee to review the documents. Instead, they want a presentation before the whole House, but in
a closed session because the information is classified.

“It’s hard to make a decision on something like immunity when you don’t even know what it’s for,”
said Schakowsky. “I think everyone should learn the highlights.”

Schakowsky presented the idea Tuesday to Pelosi during a discussion on FISA at the caucus meeting.

Pelosi said she would review the details, but did not give a decision.

The request comes as Democrats are feeling more confident in their defiance of Bush on his
signature issue of national security.

“The pendulum is swinging back on the issue of civil liberties,” said House Democratic Caucus
Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) “We may be finding an atmosphere that’s much calmer.”

Democrats Tuesday voted down 212-198 an attempt by House Republicans to bring up the Senate-passed
version of the surveillance bill, which would shield from lawsuits the telephone companies that
participated in the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program.

Democratic leaders dialed up their rhetoric, accusing the administration of whipping up the public’s
fear to hide its own questionable conduct.

“They think they did something wrong and they don’t want it disclosed,” said House Majority Leader
Steny Hoyer (D-Md.). “It has nothing to do with our nation’s security.”

Republicans said it has everything to do with the nation’s security.

“Every day that the House Democratic leadership delays, we are losing valuable information about
terrorists’ plans. That is wrong and dangerous, and I welcome any Democratic member who agrees to
vote with us,” said House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio).

The House-passed surveillance bill, written by Democrats, does not grant immunity to the carriers
and grants more power to the FISA court, which has traditionally overseen foreign intelligence
surveillance. The Senate passed a bill earlier this month, with strong GOP support, that includes
immunity. The White House has threatened to veto any bill that does not shield carriers from lawsuits.

House and Senate Democrats have been meeting to resolve their differences on the surveillance legislation.

Republicans have declined to attend the meetings, saying Congress should pass the Senate version of the bill with no changes.

Boehner’s spokesman, Kevin Smith, derided the secret session proposal as a stalling tactic.

“There are clear rules and procedures for how Congress handles classified information,” Smith said.
“This nonsense is nothing more than another stalling tactic from a bunch of liberals who don’t want
to give our intelligence officials all the tools they need to keep America safe.”

Secret sessions are fairly rare, according to the House Historian’s Office. Since 1830, the House
has met behind doors only three times; 1979, 1980 and 1983.

There are other ways the House can meet behind closed doors, but that, too, is rare. In July 1998,
the House held a secret “briefing” from law enforcement officials in the chamber about the shooting
of two Capitol police officers earlier that month. In March 1999, the House had a secret “meeting”
on classified emerging ballistic missile threats.

But this was not considered a “secret session,” according to the historian’s office, because it
was held by a former defense secretary chairing a commission on missile threats.

In May 2007, Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) tried to get the House to go into closed session to discuss
earmarks in the Intelligence authorization bill. His motion failed 207-217.

[stevedeshazer]

24. That directly conflicts with the AP article I posted

"Republicans requested privacy for what they termed "an honest debate" on the new Democratic eavesdropping bill that is opposed by the White House and most Republicans in Congress."

Also this article: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/13/politics/politico/thecrypt/main3937515.shtml

<snip>

Several House Democrats Object To Closed Session

(The Politico) As the House prepared to enter into a rare closed session Thursday night to discuss controversial electronic surveillance legislation, several House Democrats voiced strong objections to the meeting, offering a rare public objection to a floor decision by House Democratic leadership.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) said debating such an important issue behind closed doors “raises questions about the constitution of the U.S.” arguing that the House floor is “the citadel of free speech” and should not be closed to public view. Kucinich said he would not be attending the session.

"We are treading on very treacherous ground," said Rep. David Scott (D-Ga.), arguing that the public should be shut out of the debate only if it is absolutely necessary.

House Republicans called for the session—which will be closed to the media and all but the highest level staff--to discuss classified information relating to an update to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Democratic leaders agreed to go along with the session earlier in the day.

Congress has been deadlocked for weeks over the measure, arguing over whether or not to grant retroactive immunity to telecom companies who aided the government in the wiretapping program after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Republicans have argued that if members are able to learn more about the program, they will grant the immunity to the telecoms.

It is just the sixth closed session in House history and the first since 1983 when the chamber discussed aid to Nicaragua. </snip>

I don't buy your argument that liberals are behind this. John Freaking Boner is.

[Breeze54]

33. Maybe they already had the 'info. session'

but it seemed to me that this is what this is about.

I hadn't heard anything about if they had held the info. session.

Perhaps because it was secret?

Perhaps you're right and they did and this is a result of it.

Sorry if I have made a mistake, although I'm not sure if I did.

But it still sounds like they're arguing about a closed session,
due to the repukes refusing the progressive caucus's request for
a closed session in the article I posted.

[stevedeshazer]

36. I'm not sure you're mistaken

After all, with a secret government, we really don't know for sure, do we?

:toast:

[Breeze54]

43. You've got that right!

:toast:

:D

[LSK]

30. Roy Blunt requested it tonite

[proud2BlibKansan]

9. Just one more

in a long list of errors by our Democratic representatives.

[Breeze54]

23. Read Post # 16

[stevedeshazer]

25. I did. Read Post # 24

[johnnypneumatic]

10. umm, isn't this ironic? they don't want us to hear them debate

the illegal spying on us and how they aren't going to do anything about it and give immunity to those who did it? And they have to sweep the chamber so they don't get spied on? :)

[MonkeyFunk]

11. I don't understand the anger over this...

sometimes it's necessary. And, as pointed out above, the Progressive Caucus WANTED this.

At least the whole House got to hear the debate, not just a select few.

[stevedeshazer]

15. Why just them?

Can't handle the truth?

[Breeze54]

19. Read Post # 16

[MonkeyFunk]

29. I don't understand your question

are you saying that they should discuss classified information in open session?

[stevedeshazer]

48. Why does our government have secrets?

[BigDaddy44]

54. You're kidding, right?

Lets see.....the plans for the Normandy invasion. Should we have mailed them to the Germans first?

Every government has secrets.

[Pavulon]

46. Truth cost lots of money

why should we put our operational capability to intercept and interpret signal intelligence out there for all to see.

[tyedyeto]

38. And the American public doesn't deserve the right to know?

Excuse me, but they work for us, right?

Then WE deserve to know what is happening in OUR government.

[MonkeyFunk]

40. The public has never had the right

to hear classified information.

The congress hears lots of things you and I aren't privy to. It's nothing new.

[tyedyeto]

42. And who determines if it's classified?

Not you or I, Monkey 'Rebublican' Funk.

Keep on defending secrecy within our government and you'll find yourself being the object of domestic spying. Then you'll be screaming and no one will listen to you, since you have declared that spying is okay. Don't come crying to us about your situation at that time.

[MonkeyFunk]

44. You think I'm a republican

because I acknowledge the existence of classified information? How odd. How stupid.

[Pavulon]

47. That is some ignant post

every Democratic congress and President has used and relied on top secret information.

The government is not rhel, we are not open source.

[stevedeshazer]

12. In an election year, when the Dems are (were?) poised to win big, this move is wrong.

I feel like I've been kicked in the stomach.

All they had to do was to keep this debate very public. We woulda kicked ass. Instead, Nancy and Steny caved. Again.

What's to be gained here?

[Faygo Kid]

14. Disgusting. This is The People's Business. Dammit, stop Bush for a change. Stop him.

"Only five closed sessions have taken place in the House since 1825."

They will probably walk out with an authorization for Bush to attack Iran, and another condemnation of Moveon.org for the Petraeus ad.

Sorry, but I'm sick and tired of getting hit in the head by Bush and his cronies every time I turn around.

[Breeze54]

21. Read Post # 16

[Faygo Kid]

26. I still don't like it.

"They believe that the more members know about it, the less likely they will be to support Bush’s wish to make it permanent."

What, they are actually giving the GOP reps the benefit of the doubt in terms of being independent in their judgment of Bush initiatives?

Has the last seven years taught them nothing? Do they really believe that these Bushbots are going to go against him when he cries, "national security?"

I would rather have an open hearing. The Dems are wasting their time on trying to convert today's GOP. This is not the same group that once criticized Nixon. This crowd would throw us into the camps if Bush said they should do it.

[Breeze54]

35. Open public hearing with classified info?

And no, re-read what the progressive caucus was trying to do.

[Faygo Kid]

39. Bush says it's classified. That means it's suspect.

We lose every time we play into their hands.

Every time.

I truly hope you're right, but I see nothing in the past seven years to indicate that you are. Even if the Dems can get this hearing, what will come out of it? Nothing. The only solution is to fight Bush at every turn from here on out, and hope we can get him out of office in January. That may not be easy.

[thecrow]

17. Is it an Iranian thing?

Will they all come out of there with a vote to go to war with Iran?

Is Cheney in there telling them they will all be fucked and shot in the face if they don't agree?

Oh to be a fly on the wall....

[LSK]

32. No n/t

[BlueJac]

18. I am tired of weak Democrats........n/t

[Breeze54]

20. Read Post # 16

[Postman]

27. It's immunity for Bush NOT the telecoms. Lawsuits require "discovery"

and during "discovery" it would be disclosed how Bush violated the Constitution.

Remember they were violating the Constitution BEFORE 9/11 happened.

Who was Bush spying on then?

Why wasn't 9/11 prevented if they were doing their jobs?

[stevedeshazer]

31. Exactly my point

I didn't make it very well, so thanks.

[LSK]

28. CSPAN just replayed the debate on whether to have this

Blunt said that the Intelligence and Judiciary Cmte have information that he wants the full House to have but does not want that information out in public because it is "secret".

Apparently this is the 6th time in the history of the House that this has happened. Sheila Jackson Lee, Barbara Watson, Dennis Kucinich all raised objections but in the end are going along with it.

[PSPS]

34. Again with the lie: "eavesdrop ... without court permission after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks."

Bush opposes it in part because it doesn't provide full, retroactive legal protection to telecommunications companies that helped the government eavesdrop on their customers without court permission after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

This illegal spying began in February, 2001, shortly after bush was illegally installed into office and long before 9/11/2001.

[hvn_nbr_2]

37. They must need secrecy to...

openly lay out the threats. No, I don't mean the threats to national security or threats of terrorist actions. I mean the threats to members of Congress who don't go along with the Bushco program.

I will be completely (but pleasantly) surprised if the House Dems don't cave to Bushler after this closed session. All this stuff about the House not going along with retroactive immunity up till now has probably just been a Kabuki dance.

[nashville_brook]

41. just an aside -- i remember when "being disgusting" with house Dems would start a flame war on DU...

how times have changed (for the better).


that said, i think Breeze's post #16 is key here. i wondered if something like that might not be afoot.

[Pavulon]

45. Cant have operational aspects in discovery

period. There is NO WAY these cases will see open court. If they do the multi billion dollar programs they destroy will only be replaced with new multi billion dollar programs we have to pay for.

You do not shoot the messenger. Screwing with telecoms and the nsa is really stupid.

[stevedeshazer]

49. So, this Constitution stuff is just naïve?

Let's just line up to get chipped, then.

I hope you're being sarcastic.

[orleans]

51. .

"We the People deserve to know the TRUTH. This is OUR country.

"Isn't it?"

in answer to your question: NO.

[OneBlueSky]

52. they will cave . . . they always do . . . what good is having a Democratic Congress . . .

if they always support Republican policies and positions? . . .

[opihimoimoi]

53. Kill the Dems then, we all vote for the PUBs...have a Repub congress like 4 years ago and a repub

Court, and Repub Prezinent McShame

The Dems are killing us...gave us $3.50 gas,

Fucked our economy

made war on Iraq...some troops 5 fucking tours already

allowed New Orleans to drown

2 recessions in 7 years

yup, vote RED

[cyclezealot]

56. My favorite Dennis Kucinich came through, as always

He was only one of five who voted no to an executive session. So glad we still have him to protect us.