It seems apparent that Kucinich smelled the obvious bullshit coming from Boehner and the GOP, but I agree he should have probably sat there in the meeting and gone through the motions regardless, just for kicks.

An interesting read from Greenwald, who directly answers this cute little game from the GOP:

quote:

Thursday March 13, 2008 15:10 EDT The principled, honest House Republicans (updated below) Back in February, when the House was preparing to vote on whether to extend the Protect America Act, House Intelligence Committee Member Rep. Rush Holt and several other House Democrats proposed that the House enter into a secret session to have a real debate about the merits of the legislation. This is how House Republicans reacted to that proposal, from The Hill, February 26, 2008: quote: Liberal House Democrats are pushing for a closed session to discuss the legal underpinnings of President Bush’s intelligence surveillance program. 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. . . . [House Minority Leader John] 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. [/b]"This nonsense is nothing more than another stalling tactic from a bunch of liberals[/b] who don't want to give our intelligence officials all the tools they need to keep America safe." Fast forward to today, a mere three weeks later. The House Democratic leadership has scheduled a vote on the rather decent FISA bill they unveiled earlier this week, and House Republicans are eager to block the vote because they fear it will pass. This is what House Republicans are doing today to prevent a vote, from CQ: quote: House Republicans planned to seek a rare closed session Thursday to debate a Democratic leadership-backed rewrite of electronic surveillance law. . . . Minority Leader John A. Boehner of Ohio said the House needs 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." Boehner today used almost exactly the same language used by Holt three weeks ago to justify a closed debate session -- a session which, just three weeks ago, Boehner's own spokesman said was "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." House Republicans hate it when people play politics with national security. I'll add updates to this post as the House vote on the FISA bill proceeds. The CQ article reports that the House Democratic leadership is "whipping pretty aggressively" on this bill and that it now appears to have the support of a substantial number of "Blue Dogs" (McJoan has some more details on that). And preliminary reports I have, thus far unconfirmed, suggest that the Speaker's office will first agree to Boehner's request to hold a secret session to enable full and open debate, and then proceed to a vote. This morning, the President gave his latest "pass-the-bill-I-want- or-be-slaughtered-by-the-Terrorists" speech and, although he recited his standard false, fear-mongering points, he included this particularly creepy and Orwellian formulation to justify his demands for telecom amnesty: quote: And this litigation would be unfair, because any companies that assisted us after 9/11 were assured by our government that their cooperation was legal and necessary. Companies that may have helped us save lives should be thanked for their patriotic service, not subjected to billion-dollar lawsuits that will make them less willing to help in the future. George Bush really believes -- and is outright telling us -- that when he orders private citizens to do something, and they obey, then it means that -- even if what they're doing is illegal -- they are acting "patriotically" and should be protected from all consequences. Are there any monarchs left anywhere in the Western World who even claim such a power -- to be able to order citizens to break the law? That's been a discredited "principle" since at least the Nuremberg Trials, yet this warped assertion of monarchical powers really is the central premise of the case for telecom amnesty. Continuing with their uncharacteristic though (for now) commendable defiance of the Leader, Nancy Pelosi gave a news conference this morning and made clear that the President was spewing falsehoods when he accused the House Democrats of making us vulnerable to the Terrorists with their latest FISA bill. Here was one representative exchange: Even after seven years of justifying every corrupt and radical policy imaginable via blatantly false invocations of "national security" and "Terrorism," the President can still utter those words and cause members of the media and others to quiver in fear, as though he has credibility on those matters ("but the President says this is necessary to be safe!"). Pelosi ought to issue many more clear statements like this reminding Americans that the President is the last person whose word on such matters ought to be trusted. A solid majority of Americans have reached that conclusion largely on their own, even though the Beltway media hasn't and won't. UPDATE: The House accepted Boehner's request to debate for one hour in a secret session. Nothing of any significance will happen there. It's just a delaying tactic by the Republicans because they fear they will lose the vote and the House will pass the good bill. The vote will occur tomorrow morning. http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenw..._gop/index.html

And thankfully, the version of the House bill denying telecom amnesty for their actions passed 213-197, thanks to the Blue Dogs finally not caving in to the GOP since, Jesus, it must have been since the Social Security debate. Strangely, however, Kucinich himself voted with the GOP on this. Anyone have any ideas why? My guess is he probably thought the bill wasn't "pure" enough or something, which I'm hoping he voted that way only after he knew the bill would pass, but that's pure speculation on my part.

The bottom line was very few, if any Democrats were scared off by Boehner this time, which honestly speaks volumes about this normally tepid and spineless Democratic majority. So whatever he said in that cute little "secret" meeting was given it's due time, and rightfully dismissed as it was a case of either his blatant hypocricy was on full display, or that anything he said was apparently not persuasive at all as to why we shouldn't allow the courts to do their fucking jobs against the telecoms and this Administration for spying on Americans.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Strangely, however, Kucinich himself voted with the GOP on this. Anyone have any ideas why?

maybe he's not a lap dog for the trial lawer lobby either.

doubt it though. he seems like he'd be the first one to light telecoms on fire with lawsuits, %10 attorney's fee's or not.

no, he knows this won't pass the Senate much less the President. so who knows. maybe the Dems are just trying to stall.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo maybe he's not a lap dog for the trial lawer lobby either. doubt it though. he seems like he'd be the first one to light telecoms on fire with lawsuits, %10 attorney's fee's or not.

The only people going after the telecoms as it stands right now are nonprofit companies, so I don't think the argument of frivolous lawsuits and their respective attorneys holds up too well here.

quote:

no, he knows this won't pass the Senate much less the President. so who knows. maybe the Dems are just trying to stall.

You're probably right about that.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 The only people going after the telecoms as it stands right now are nonprofit companies, so I don't think the argument of frivolous lawsuits and their respective attorneys holds up too well here.

as of now.

what is the purpose of this House version of the bill then?

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo as of now. what is the purpose of this House version of the bill then?

You said it just a minute ago:

quote:

maybe the Dems are just trying to stall.

A stall means that there will be no retroactive immunity for the telecoms. They know Bush will veto, which is fine to them so long as the Rockefeller/Cheney Senate Intelligence Committee version of the bill allowing retroactive immunity does not go forward in any way.

Because that entails the judicial courts and their decisions can continue to go forward. Whether or not you agree with allowing retroactive immunity isn't the issue here - because the Judicial system can and should be allowed to do their job on investigating whether or not the bills created by the Legislative and Executive Branch are being followed - namely, the FISA Act of 1978. If the telecom industry and this Administration has followed the law accordingly, then there should be absolutely no need for either one of them to require retroactive immunity of any sort. According to this Administration, no one has broken any laws. Fine, let's allow the courts to see if that's the case.

Added in Edit: Again, I'll let Glenn Greenwald answer the question better than I can:

quote:

It is, of course, true that this bill will have a hard time passing the Senate (though if even most House Blue Dogs were persuaded to support this bill, why can't most Democratic Senators who previously voted for the Rockefeller bill be persuaded?). It's also true that even if it did pass the Senate, the President will veto it, and there won't be enough votes to override the veto. So this bill won't become law, but that doesn't matter. The reality is that the best possible outcome here is nothing -- we lived quite well for 30 years under FISA and if no new bill is passed, we will continue to live under FISA. FISA FISA grants extremely broad eavesdropping powers to the President and the FISA court virtually never interferes with any eavesdropping activities. And the only "fix" to FISA that is even arguably necessary -- allowing eavesdropping on foreign-to-foreign calls without warrants -- has the support of virtually everyone in Congress and could be easily passed as a stand-alone measure. What matters is not that this bill becomes law, but that the Rockefeller/Cheney bill does not. And House Democrats, including Blue Dogs, are obviously comfortable with defending the bill they just passed as more than sufficient to protect the nation, extend fairness to telecoms, and safeguard basic liberties. So there should never be any reason why they feel compelled to vote for the Rockefeller/Cheney bill, or any bill granting amnesty, given that they have just done their jobs. That is the real benefit of today's vote. http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/03/14/fisa/index.html

Another interesting link: http://epic.org/privacy/wiretap/stats/fisa_stats.html

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

Last edited by MisterOpus1 on Mar-17-2008 at 00:14

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 A stall means that there will be no retroactive immunity for the telecoms. They know Bush will veto, which is fine to them so long as the Rockefeller/Cheney Senate Intelligence Committee version of the bill allowing retroactive immunity does not go forward in any way. Because that entails the judicial courts and their decisions can continue to go forward. Whether or not you agree with allowing retroactive immunity isn't the issue here - because the Judicial system can and should be allowed to do their job on investigating whether or not the bills created by the Legislative and Executive Branch are being followed - namely, the FISA Act of 1978. If the telecom industry and this Administration has followed the law accordingly, then there should be absolutely no need for either one of them to require retroactive immunity of any sort. According to this Administration, no one has broken any laws. Fine, let's allow the courts to see if that's the case.

this program has been, for the last three years, scrutinized and investigated and brought before commmittee numerous times.

if theres is anything without need is this crap legislation by the lower House...and the Senate knows this.

so again, why then if not to expose telecoms to litigation now and in the future? and who does that benefit?

Last edited by Q5echo on Mar-17-2008 at 00:34

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo this program has been, for the last three years, scrutinized and investigated and brought before commmittee numerous times. if theres is anything without need is this crap legislation by the lower House...and the Senate knows this. so again, why?

Honestly because I think the House Dems. have a few extra pair of 'nads versus the Senate Dems. as a collective whole. To me this was why the minority voice in the Senate Dems. (i.e. like Finegold) was overridden by Rockefeller and Reid, who despite Reid's posturing, have been heavily lobbied and given enormous amounts of cash flow by the telecom industry last year as the industry looked ahead and noticed that some of these lawsuits indeed may have teeth.

For example: http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/20...ushing-spy.html

Also here: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.ph...Jay_Rockefeller

Notice that AT&T and Verizon Communications are in his top 5 (1 and 4, respectively).

Reid also has similar contribution issues as well, which has drawn major fire from the Dem. grassroot folks (or in your terms, the Moonbat libruls) on both of these characters. One can argue that Reid is seemingly saying one thing against Bush and this FISA law amendments while apparently playing many of his Democratic bloggers and grassrooters for fools - to which I would agree. It's a big reason why there's a push to have Senator Dodd in for Senate Dem. leader, because honestly we're sick as hell of Reid's shit. Reid will say how much he doesn't support telecom amnesty all day long......and then he shelves the Judiciary bill that does exactly that for the Rockefeller bill that Jay worked with Cheney on to give amnesty to the telecoms. He's a turd, plain and simple.

That's not to say that there's likely some House Dems. who probably have some telecom contributions of their own - I'm sure there are. But the original House bill didn't allow amnesty for a specific reason, and they've stuck to that here as well. If anything that demonstrates more consistency by the House Dems. versus the Senate Dems., whether one agrees with their bills or not.

So to come full circle back to your question, my answer is still the same: because the House Dems. want to stall and make sure amnesty does not pass into law for the telecoms because IF the telecoms acted in good faith, then they should have no problem demonstrating that in court. Because our current FISA and other laws already contain amnesty for telecom industries IF they can show they acted in good faith:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/...20----000-.html

So the question still remains, if they did not break any laws, why the necessity for amnesty?

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 So the question still remains, if they did not break any laws, why the necessity for amnesty?

They know they broke law, not only that; they helped the government violate the constitution. They should pay very dearly for violating our trust as customers and giving away our information...

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo so again, why then if not to expose telecoms to litigation now and in the future? and who does that benefit?

You expanded on your question a bit before I answered it in full. It seems you're coming back to hinting at frivolous lawsuits and attorneys apparently drooling at the prospect of cashing in. Two thoughts on that, one which I touched on earlier:

1. IF that were the case, I dunno, but I would expect for-profit lawyers lining up in hoards for the opportunity like we have with the tobacco lawsuits or something. But that just simply isn't the case, since the only two groups with litigation are nonprofit, i.e. the ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). Perhaps one could argue that the attorneys are just waiting for blood to be drawn by the nonprofits before they decide to jump in with both feet. IF that were the case, I would argue with my next point:

2. These are not small businesses we're talking about here. We're talking about multi-billion dollar industries, multi-billion IN PROFIT industries that have hoards of attorneys of their own, the best and brightest attorneys money could possibly buy. IF we are to assume that there might be for-profit attorneys just waiting to jump in, alrighty then let's have at it and see what happens. Because the quarterly annual profits of these companies are just sickly good, and my money's on the fact that IF they have a valid argument that they followed the law, then they should be able to defend themselves quite well and not lose too much of that profit in the process. So in any case, the telecoms shouldn't be sweating anything PROVIDED that they did nothing wrong.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 So to come full circle back to your question, my answer is still the same: because the House Dems. want to stall and make sure amnesty does not pass into law for the telecoms because IF the telecoms acted in good faith, then they should have no problem demonstrating that in court. Because our current FISA and other laws already contain amnesty for telecom industries IF they can show they acted in good faith:

they did act in good faith. it has been demonstrated to the highest memebers and levels of government they acted on good faith. Telecom industry integrity (as it partains to National Security and privacy ) is not the issue.

what i gather you are saying, Opus, is that you would rather see CIVIL lawyers, in the CIVIL arena do the work of a Federal Justice Dept. that you and the House Dems are philisophically opposed to. thats wrong on many levels IMO.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 You expanded on your question a bit before I answered it in full. It seems you're coming back to hinting at frivolous lawsuits and attorneys apparently drooling at the prospect of cashing in.

no not really. i just don't want this in the civil arena.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo they did act in good faith. it has been demonstrated to the highest memebers and levels of government they acted on good faith. Telecom industry integrity (as it partains to National Security and privacy ) is not the issue. what i gather you are saying, Opus, is that you would rather see CIVIL lawyers, in the CIVIL arena do the work of a Federal Justice Dept. that you and the House Dems are philisophically opposed to. thats wrong on many levels IMO.

Believe it or not, I might actually be opposed to a shitload of civil cases myself.

But as it stands, we're not in the civil arena right now. And it's not just a matter of philosophical differences with this Justice Dept. The Justice Dept. exposed it's own rank ineptitude and corruption on it's own, which has thoroughly demonstrated a sincere lack of nonpartisanship and unbiased stance not just on this issue but a wealth of issues.

Perhaps that's how it's always been with the Justice Dept., being the little bitch of the Executive, if you will, rather than being a nonpartisan entity that helps enforce the law as it stands rather than the Executive's interpretation of the law. I'll accept that argument if one wants to go back further beyond Bush. That certainly doesn't make it right in any case, however.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...