Also see:     
AOL/Microsoft-Hotmail Preventing Delivery of Truthout Communications    [

Also see below:     
GOP Uses FISA Bill to Bash Democrats    [

    Liberal Democrats Seek Secret FISA Session
    By Mike Soraghan
    The Hill

    Tuesday 26 February 2008

    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. "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.

    Go to Original

    GOP Uses Surveillance Bill to Bash Democrats
    By Dan Eggen
    The Washington Post

    Thursday 28 February 2008

    Republicans are convinced that highlighting their counterterrorism policies will be a political winner in this presidential election year, and they have focused this week on Democratic opposition to their version of a new surveillance bill as a way to paint Democrats as soft on national security, according to GOP lawmakers and their aides.

    Democrats respond that they are unfazed by the attacks, arguing that most Americans doubt the credibility of President Bush and Republicans when it comes to warning about security threats.

    Bush and GOP lawmakers have been releasing a blizzard of public statements and organizing multiple news conferences to pressure the House to adopt a Senate bill renewing and expanding a temporary surveillance law called the Protect America Act. The measure would grant legal immunity to telecommunications companies over their cooperation in warrantless wiretapping done after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

    House Democratic leaders oppose the immunity provision and maneuvered to allow the temporary statute to expire on Feb. 16. The administration has repeatedly said that telecom firms need protection from lawsuits in order to cooperate with the government.

    The House Republican Conference has created an Internet advertisement, available on the committee's Web site and on YouTube, warning that "America is at risk" because of the standoff. An outside nonprofit group headed by a former Republican National Committee official has also launched a national television advertising campaign targeting more than a dozen House Democrats around the country.

    The activity reflects the Republicans' view that they are on the winning side of a politically important issue, GOP lawmakers and aides say. During a speech at the RNC in January, former presidential adviser Karl Rove cited the fight over the surveillance bill as one of four key issues that GOP candidates should highlight during the campaign season, according to a transcript of his remarks.

    "The House Democrat leaders are on the wrong side of the American people on this," said Brian Schubert, spokesman for the House Republican Conference.

    But Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, accused Republicans of engaging in "fear-mongering." He said the dispute hinges on whether to protect "big phone companies."

    "We're willing to stand up to this and bring some balance to this debate," Emanuel said in an interview yesterday.

    Bush, who has spoken about the surveillance issue almost daily since the temporary law expired, said yesterday that the House's failure to pass new legislation is "inexcusable" and "indefensible."

    One of the most visible attacks in the debate has come from a newly created advocacy group, Defense of Democracies, which has produced a series of television advertisements that began airing last Friday in 15 congressional districts represented by freshman Democrats.

    A national version of the ad also aired Tuesday night during the Democratic presidential debate on MSNBC. The spot, which includes footage of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, alleges that the dispute has "crippled" the nation's surveillance capabilities and urges viewers to "tell the House of Representatives to do its job and pass the terrorist surveillance bill to keep us all safe."

    The group is headed by Clifford D. May, a former RNC communications director who also heads the similarly named Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Spokesman Brian Wise said the nonprofit group that sponsored the ad was formed last week because tax rules prohibit the foundation from issuing advocacy ads.

    The ads have angered some of the Democrats who are listed as advisers to the foundation, which was formed as a nonpartisan policy group after the Sept. 11 attacks. At least four, including Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) and prominent strategist Donna Brazile, have quit the foundation because of the ad campaign. Brazile said in a statement that the group "has morphed into a radical right wing organization that is doing the dirty work for the Bush Administration and Congressional Republicans."

    Wise disputed the criticism. He said the ad campaign is "not partisan" because it focuses on supporting a surveillance bill that was passed by the Senate with the backing of many Democrats.

    Staff writer Michael Abramowitz contributed to this report.