TPM Muckraker

« previous | MUCK HOME | next »

House to Enter Rare Closed Session over Spy Bill

From CQ:

The House was to meet Thursday in its first closed session in 25 years to debate a Democratic leadership-backed rewrite of electronic surveillance law....

Earlier, Minority Leader John A. Boehner said Republicans would ask for the closed session to have an “open and honest debate about some of the important details about this program, that don’t need to be heard in public.”

Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif., has agreed to the request.

“We’re having debate on the bill. And I don’t have any problem with having part of it in closed session, and part of it in open session,” Pelosi said.

House Judicary Committee Chair John Conyers (D-MI) is skeptical:

"The more my colleagues know, the less they believe this Administration's rhetoric. As someone who has chaired classified hearings and reviewed classified materials on this subject, I believe the more information Members receive about this Administration's actions in the area of warrantless surveillance, the more likely they are to reject the Administration's scare tactics and threats. My colleagues who joined me in the hearings and reviewed the Administration's documents have walked away with an inescapable conclusion: the Administration has not made the case for unprecedented spying powers and blanket retroactive immunity for phone companies.
"Whether this is a worthwhile exercise or mere grandstanding depends on whether Republicans have groundbreaking new information that would affect the legislative process. There must be a very high bar to urge the House into a secret session for the first time in 25 years. I eagerly await their presentation to see if it clears this threshold. As someone who has seen and heard an enormous amount of information already, I have my doubts."

Update: And here's Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ), a member of the intelligence committee, who's similarly skeptical:

“I believe in the use of secret sessions in the House when they are intended to truly educate members on the issues and provide them with valuable classified information. Secret sessions should not be used as a cynical, delaying tactic to block the House from voting on critical legislation that would strengthen our intelligence collection efforts and protect the American people from warrantless surveillance. I will be interested to see if Mr. Boehner truly has new classified information on this program to share with members of the House, and I will seek the opportunity to inform my colleagues of what I have learned about this program and the President’s actions in this matter."

14 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

I'd like to know how much info (if any) we, the tax-paying public, will get out of the closed session.

If I want to listen in, do I need a warrant or can my local Verizon operator just connect me?

user-pic

lol.

Don't worry, you're not going to miss anything. It's all theatrics. They'll claim later to have made a compelling, but regrettably super-secret, argument for data mining and universal invasion of privacy of everything from phone calls to credit card transactions to library borrowing records. They won't call it that of course.

user-pic

Why does Connyers seem to be about the only one in the hill to have a lick of sense?

Why do Pelosi and Reid do everything they can to help the Repubics? Does she imagine that John Boehner would EVER extend the same courtesy to her if the situation was reversed?

A discussion needs to be had about the leadership of the Democratic Party in the House and the Senate in the tidal wave that is coming this November.

And both Pelosi and Reid NEED TO GO.

user-pic

What are you talking about? Politics aren't a zero sum game. Think before you post.

Either way Republicans are going to claim foul.

But for Dems this can also be good to discuss classified programs and call their bluff. They have the majority and will be able to say the majority of the people's elected Representatives had a closed session, discussed the issues in detail including classified aspects with Republican colleagues, and ultimately reached a decision for the good of national security and for rule of law and upholding the Constitution.

Sorry to cross-post but intel agencies don't need a warrant to eavesdrop on foreign telephone calls. They've been doing that since the OSS was formed. But they do need a warrant to tap the phones of American citizens. And if the wiretapping so far was legal, why is immunity even an issue?

(scratching head)

Bamage, why should you deserve to hear anything?

You deserve what you get unless you're willing to get your ass out of your chair and do something to let your government know you actually give a shit.

peace, bra

user-pic

Paul,

Where did Conyers' and Holt's quotes come from? The link at CQ doesn't have those quotes, and while Holt's quote seems to be in the context of skepticism about a secret session, Conyers' first paragraph's concerns seem to be more general.

How does a secret session limit the amount and kind of information the members will receive, which I agree with Conyers is key to moving more members toward approving the new bill? The implication in Conyers' second paragraph is that there would be information that could not be revealed in an open session. I understand his doubting the value of the closed-door process, but I'd be clearer on his concerns by knowing the source of the quotes.

user-pic

Ooh baby, what juicy nugget did Bush tell Boehner that will convince the dems that illegality means legality in our new founded Islamo fascist world. Well considering that Bush used ridiculous examples such as the shoe bomber in his SOTU speech, I can only imagine whatever he says won't be credible.

Is this being done to silence all of the Democrats in the house?

Once they've heard items concerning national security in a closed session, aren't they prohibited from revealing anything that came out in that discussion?

Is this where Boehner hands out the pieces of paper to all of the Dems, stating "here's what we're doing, and here's what we have on you (like we did with Spitzer), and here's your one-way ticket to Gitmo if you breathe a word of it to anyone."

user-pic

no. What's classified is already classified.

This is just theatrics by the Republicans. They probably expected Dems to say no, then they could cry that Dems blocked them from revealign thier super-secret evidence.

Pelosi smartly called them on the bluff.

Afterwards Conyers and others will rightly say they gave Republicans their chance, they had nothing, Democrats discussed the issues including classified details, and the majority of the people's elected Representatives are moving forward to strengthen FISA and stop uncontrolled and unwarranted wire tapping.

user-pic

tweakyd - wtf are you on about? Do you have some direct action in mind? Torches and pitchforks, maybe?

I'm all ears.

Take Pelosi off the table in 2008

Leave a comment

Advertisement
Please disable your adblocker!
Ads are how we pay the bills!

Subscribe
Tip Line

Josh
Marshall

Bio

Zachary
Roth

Bio

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address