House Holds Secret FISA session at Republicans Request

by D. Cupples  | The U.S. House agreed to hold a secret (i.e., no public and no reporters) meeting to debate FISA last night.  According to The Hill, "the last closed House session was held in 1983. Only five have been held since 1825." 

Beforehand, Majortiy Leader Steny Hoyer made this statement:

"The Majority received a request from the Minority Whip, Mr. Blunt, for the House to go into secret session.  Mr. Blunt stated that Members in the Minority believe they have information relevant to the debate on FISA that cannot be publicly discussed.  The Majority agreed to Mr. Blunt’s request so that the Members may hear this information in a secret session...."

I'd like to know how it came about that Minority members of Congress know such important details that Majority members don't know.

Memeorandum has commentary.

Other BN-politics Posts:

* Legal Abuses and FBI Data Mining

* Olbermann's Hillary Comments about Ferraro, Pro-Obama

* McCain's Spiritual Adivser says "Destroy Islam"

* Obama Campaign Uses Bush-Style Tactics in Email

.

Comments

[Adam]

It's possible that it's information that some Democrat committee members know as well, but the house as a whole doesn't know. Or, as you imply, this could be leaked info from the exectutive and/or intelligence services.

Either way, I can't imagine any evidence in existence that would convince me that retroactive immunity is a good idea. If there was incontrovertible proof that an illegal warrantless wiretap provided the intelligence that saved us from a nuclear bomb detonating in a major city, that would not convince me that blanket retroactive immunity is a good idea. It would simply convince me that allowing for wiretapping is a good idea.

The crux of their argument, more likely, is going to be "there's intelligence we're losing!!" Well then, get off you telecom-padded butts and push the already approved House Democrat FISA bill through. Or approve the exension that the Democrats offered BEFORE the current bill expired. The hipocricy here is simply staggering.

If we have retroactive immunity than we may as well not have the rest of the laws, because the rules of the game become "do what we say and we will protect you later on".

[D. Cupples]

As I've written in blog posts tooooo many times, I don't think they're after data.

I think they're trying to protect Telecoms from getting hauled into court, where subpoenaed records will likely double as evidence of Administration officials' crimes.

Then again, my mind-reading skills are insisting on staying in the Keys until north Florida temperatures are consistently in the high 70s.