SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: epicure who wrote (214380)8/3/2007 7:20:06 PM
From: longnshort  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793838
 
WASHINGTON — The House nearly grinded to a halt Friday as Republicans and Democrats continued to feud over a screwball vote from Thursday and the electronic voting system went down later in the day.

Lawmakers had planned on cramming several votes into the day as they neared their month-long summer recess, scheduled to start at close of business Friday. But Thursday night's disputed vote rubbed nerves raw and pushed negotiations over how to proceed into the afternoon.

Thursday night, House Republicans had offered a so-called motion to recommit on the agriculture appropriations bill, which would have stalled the bill on the House floor and sent it back to committee. Republicans said the changes to the bill under their motion, if approved, would have prevented illegal immigrants from benefiting from new provisions in the agriculture bill.

As that vote was coming to a close, Rep. Michael McNulty, D-N.Y. — who at the time was in charge of the floor — gaveled the vote closed at a dead heat, 214-214, a vote that would signify that the effort to stall the bill failed.

But the electronic board in the House at that moment showed Republicans with the higher ground at 215-213. This prompted the shouting and boos. Republicans, already rankled by longer-than-expected preliminary votes leading up to a final vote on the agriculture bill, started shouting "Nay! Nay! Nay!"

(Story continues below)

Advertise Here
Advertisements
Related

*
Stories
o House OKs Plan to Allow Prescription Drug Imports
o House Approves Mandatory Time at Home Between Troop Deployments to Iraq
o House Votes to Reverse Supreme Court Pay Discrimination Case
o House to Vote on Lobbying Reform Bill

Moments later, the board showed that Democrats had the upper hand, with 216 votes to the Republicans' 212. In protest of the last-minute shifts, Republicans marched off the House floor.

In an attempt to appease Republicans, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland quickly offered a motion that would allow a revote on the matter, but the attendance for that motion was decidedly fewer: 216 yeas, 12 nays and 55 voting only "present."

On the final vote, the agriculture bill passed on a 237-18 vote, with 13 voting "present."

Nerves were still raw Friday morning, but in mano-a-mano deal-making between two top House lawmakers, the two sides of the aisle appeared to reach a truce.

On the House floor, members gathered to try to sort out what happened and to mend fences. Hoyer offered a resolution to hand the matter over to the House ethics panel and offered a personal apology to his Republican counterparts over the blow-up.

"The minority was understandably angry," he said.

House Minority Leader John Boehner avoided harsh criticism but said the ethics panel resolution would be unfair because of the majority control by Democrats — adding that it would be like putting the matter "in a black hole."

McNulty apologized for calling the vote prematurely.

"I just want to express regret to all the members in the House, and especially the minority, of any role that I may have had in that confusion," McNulty said.

After talking it over, Hoyer and Boehner agreed to not press any further with either of their resolutions and move on.

Boehner urged his colleagues to take the approach that, "What happened last night, happened last night."

Later in the day, Boehner was less willing to give. In a statement he issue with Minority Whip Roy Blunt of Missouri, they said a meeting they had Friday with Hoyer didn't fix the problem: Democrats still refused to reverse the vote.

"The right course of action is for the Democratic leadership to respect the will of the House and the American people by allowing the actual vote to stand," Boehner and Blunt said.

And with the exception of two votes — on providing money for the collapsed bridge in Minneapolis, and amending the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act — they said "the House should not proceed with work on any other business until last night's vote to deny taxpayer-funded benefits to illegal immigrants is restored."

But as the House was set to take up a preliminary vote on FISA, sometime around 3 p.m., the House electronic vote tallying system failed. It was up by 4 p.m., but not long after, the administration sent its notice that the version of the bill being considered — being pushed by Democrats — wasn't unacceptable.

FOX News' Jim Mills, Lee Ross and Molly Hooper contributed to this report.

* See Next Story in Politics

* E-MAIL STORY
* RESPOND TO EDITOR
* PRINTER FRIENDLY VERSION

Fox News Video
Top Video
Wiretapping Fight

Republicans walk out on House vote
Latest Fox News Headlines
Politics

* Miller Time: Dennis on Dodd
* O’Reilly: Dodd defends Daily Kos
* Lawmakers battle over updating FISA
* Latest on attorney firing investigation

ADVERTISEMENT
RCP POLL AVERAGES



Republican Presidential Nomination
RCP Average
Giuliani 27.5%
Thompson 18.3%
McCain 15.5%
Romney 10.2%
Giuliani +9.2%
Poll Details

Democratic Presidential Nomination
RCP Average
Clinton 40.5%
Obama 24.2%
Edwards 10.8%
Richardson 3.3%
Clinton +16.3%
Poll Details

President Bush Job Approval
RCP Average
Approve 32.5%
Disapprove 62.0%
Spread -29.5%
Poll Details

Congressional Job Approval
RCP Average
Approve 28.8%
Disapprove 63.8%
Spread -35%
Poll Details

* Most Read
* Top Emailed
* Top Videos

* Arkansas Couple Has 17th Child, Still Want More
* Minnesota Collapsed Bridge Death Toll Rises to 5, 8 Still Missing
* Missing Minister's Wife Returns to Alabama From New York
* Original Van Gogh Found; 70-Year-Old Misattribution Uncovered
* Pop Tarts: Heidi Klum’s Bust-Boosting 'Secret'
* Man Pulls 12-Year-Old's Head From Cougar's Jaws
* Lawyers, Fathers Seek to Ban Self-Proclaimed Pedophile From Community
* Medical Examiner: Not Sure How Jessie Davis Died
* Pakistan Criticizes Obama on Comments
* Telemundo Newscaster Mirthala Salinas Suspended for Two Months Over Affair With L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa
* Newspaper Editor Reportedly Threatened Before Ambush, Fatal Shooting
* Armored Car Company Loses 32,000 Quarters on Wisconsin Roads
* Study: Cheap Cervical Cancer Test Could Save Millions of Lives
* California Weekly Newspaper Editor Shot to Death in Oakland
* Federal Court Rules FBI Raid on Rep. William Jefferson's Office Unconstitutional
* Wisconsin Teen Guilty in Principal's Death

* List of Toys Being Recalled
* Report: All Mexican Charges May Have Been Dropped Against Bounty Hunter Duane 'Dog' Chapman
* Study: Cheap Cervical Cancer Test Could Save Millions of Lives
* Junk Science: How Now Brown Cloud?
* Hollywood Minister Guilty of Dealing Pot in Church
* Arkansas Couple Has 17th Child, Still Want More
* Study: Coffee May Prevent Liver Cancer
* Manchester United Recruits 9-Year-Old Standout After Watching Him on YouTube
* Man Pulls 12-Year-Old's Head From Cougar's Jaws
* Infant Dies After Mom Forgets to Drop Him Off at Day Care, Leaves Him in Car

* Collapse Caught on Tape
* Still Missing
* 'Factor' Shootout
* Horrific Scene
* Reason to Celebrate?
* Miller Time
* Live Site Stream
* Image Is Everything
* Little Survivors
* Disaster Eyewitness

ADVERTISEMENT Click here to find out more!

* U.S.
* World
* Politics
* Business
* Health
* Science
* Tech
* Entertainment

AP Wires

* House Approve Bridge Money
* Bush, Democrats Deadlock on Surveillance
* Sunday News Shows Lineup
* Everglades Decision Criticized
* Actions in Congress Moving Toward Recess
* Lawmaker Wants Yahoo Probe
* Court Sides With Congressman on FBI Raid
* Top Marine Sees Gear-Provision Flaws
* Bush Seeks Discussion of Climate Change
* Consumer Agency Given Leeway to Act
* News Archive



To: epicure who wrote (214380)8/4/2007 7:07:30 AM
From: Tom Clarke  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 793838
 
The problem is Saudi founders and supporters of charities that promote radical Sunni Islam are able to ban books that speak ill of them, either by court action or intimidation of publishers.

Libel Suit Leads to Destruction of Books

By GARY SHAPIRO
Staff Reporter of the Sun
August 2, 2007

Cambridge University Press has agreed to destroy all unsold copies of a 2006 book by two American authors, "Alms for Jihad," following a libel action brought against it in England, the latest development in what critics say is an effort by Saudis to quash discussion of their alleged role in aiding terrorism.

In a letter of apology to a wealthy Saudi businessman, Sheikh Khalid Bin Mahfouz, Cambridge University Press acknowledged that allegations made in the book about his family, businesses, and charities were "entirely and manifestly false." The publisher wrote, "Please accept our sincere apologies for the distress and embarrassment this has caused."

The press also published a separate apology on its web site (http://www.cambridge.org/about/apology.htm), and wrote that it would pay substantial damages and contribute to legal costs. A press release by Sheikh Mahfouz's London-based law firm, Kendall Freeman, said Cambridge University Press was also writing to over 200 libraries around the world asking them to withdraw the book from shelves. The total press run was about 1,500 copies.

The director of the Middle East Forum, Daniel Pipes, noting that Sheikh Mahfouz has been successful in as many as four prior lawsuits against authors, said that Cambridge University Press's apology had "ominous implications" into researching the financing of terrorism.

A professor at Emory University, who won a libel suit in Britain brought against her and Penguin, Deborah Lipstadt, likewise told The New York Sun that this action by Cambridge University Press was a "frightening development." She said that it seemed to her that the Saudis were "systematically, case by case, book by book" challenging anything critical of them or anything that linked them to terrorism. She said that she could not think of any publisher that would now accept a manuscript critical of the Saudis. "This affects not only authors but readers," she said, adding that "ideas are being chased out of the marketplace."

The director of the New York-based American Center for Democracy, Rachel Ehrenfeld, said that Cambridge University Press "capitulated" and "didn't even try to fight." Sheikh Mahfouz sued her for her 2003 book "Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed Â-- and How to Stop It." Rather than contesting the case in Britain, Ms. Ehrenfeld has taken to the American courts. In June, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously in her favor, finding that if an American writer is sued for libel in a foreign court, that person can appeal to an American court to request that a British decision not be enforceable here.

Libel law in England is more advantageous to the litigant than is American law, which has stronger First Amendment protections.

One co-author of "Alms for Jihad," Robert Collins, who is a professor emeritus of history at the University of California, Santa Barbara, told the Sun that he could not comment until he heard from Cambridge University Press. The other co-author, a former a former State Department employee and intelligence analyst, J. Millard Burr, told the Sun that their book mentioned Sheikh Mahfouz 13 times, and in no place had they labeled him a terrorist. He said that within a week of Cambridge University receiving a letter charging defamation, he and his co-author prepared and sent supporting documents to Cambridge University Press. The authors were not themselves named parties in the suit.

In the apology letter, which is dated July 30, the intellectual property director at Cambridge University Press, Kevin Taylor wrote to Sheikh Mahfouz saying the co-authors relied on a so-called "Golden Chain" document that "has been long discredited as a reliable source." Mr. Burr told the Sun he disagreed that such document has been discredited, and said the document was used in a trial in Chicago.

The U.S. office of Cambridge University Press was unable to respond by press time.

But the Chronicle of Higher Education yesterday quoted Mr. Taylor saying "these were very serious charges" and there had already been at least two other British High Court rulings supporting Sheikh Mahfouz's position on such matters.

Another similar case in America involves KinderUSA, a charity that is suing Yale University Press, charging that a book published last year by Michael Levitt called " Hamas: Politics, Charity and Terrorism in the Service of Jihad" (2006) linked the non-profit to support of terrorism.

Mr. Burr said of his co-authored book now, "Buy it, if you can find one," since it was now a collector's item.

The press release from Sheikh Mahfouz's law firm said he would donate the money from the settlement to the United Nations Children's Fund. Forbes magazine lists the sheikh's fortune at $3.1 billion, much of which derives from a sale of National Commercial Bank to the Saudi government in 2002.

nysun.com