[Grovenet] Why should you and I have to pay / names. . . . . .

Thu Nov 1 07:41:03 PDT 2007

Steven,
   I am assuming that the 'name calling' is in reference to the reply  
that I sent about the Al Gore article.
   If you will look at your original post carefully you will find  
that none of those words were yours. All you did was to paste it and  
send it out.

   I reread my post and I can't find where I called you a name, so  
feel free to call me a name in the same way that you think I called  
you a name if that is what you think has happened. Don't take it out  
on Bob. (Truth be told though, I think Bob could take it too.) For  
me, I reserve the right to match the tone and 'snarkiness' level of  
original authors, especially when they are not even participating in  
the discussion.

Katie

On Oct 31, 2007, at 9:27 PM, Steven wrote:

> I'll give you the courtesy of not calling you names for posting  
> this as
> happens to me.
> It amazes me that these guys don't get recall elections. Talk about  
> having
> it all wrong.
> Thanks for posts like these. I need the laugh/cry. And love your  
> editorials
> too.
>   -----Original Message-----
>   From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet- 
> bounces at rdrop.com]On
> Behalf Of Bob Browning
>   Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 4:21 PM
>   To: Grovenet
>   Subject: [Grovenet] Why should you and I have to pay . . . . . .
>
>
>   Why should you and I have to pay for the Bush Administration's  
> illegal
> wiretapping? ? ? ?
>
>   Please write to Gordon, and Ron, and David, today!!
>
>   bob "to hell with Bush and his cronies" browning
>
>   PS: Please don't ask me what I really feel! ! ! ! !
>
>   ---------------------------------------------------
>
>     October 31, 2007 10:34 AM PDT
>     Republican senator: Should taxpayers pay for illegal spying?
>     Posted by Anne Broache
>     WASHINGTON--Despite demands from President Bush to shield  
> telephone and
> Internet companies from surveillance-related lawsuits, key U.S.  
> senators are
> reluctant to offer legal immunity. But they may force taxpayers to  
> pick up
> the legal tab instead.
>
>
>     Senators Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), the
> co-chairmen of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said at a hearing here
> Wednesday that they still don't have enough information to decide  
> whether
> it's wise to immunize any past assistance by telecommunications  
> providers to
> a wide swath of U.S. government agencies over the last six years.
>
>     That's precisely what would happen, however, if a bill called  
> the the
> FISA Amendments Act, which passed by a 13-2 vote in a closed-door  
> meeting of
> the Senate Intelligence Committee a few weeks ago, becomes law. That
> proposal, which has won some praise from the U.S. Department of  
> Justice, is
> now being weighed by the Judiciary Committee.
>
>     Specter suggested granting "indemnification" to telephone  
> companies who
> allegedly cooperated with the government's surveillance regimes in  
> violation
> of federal privacy laws. That would mean lawsuits could go forward,  
> but
> taxpayers would be responsible for covering any legal expenses or  
> damage
> awards against the communications companies. Damages could run into  
> the tens
> of billions of dollars if the suits are successful, according to  
> Senate
> Intelligence committee estimates.
>
>     "If we are to close the courthouse door to some 40 litigants  
> who are now
> claiming that their privacy has been invaded, it seems to me we are
> undercutting a major avenue of redress," Specter said.
>
>     Leahy, too, voiced reluctance toward granting blanket immunity.
>
>     "The Congress should be careful not to provide an incentive for  
> future
> unlawful corporate activity by giving the impression that if  
> corporations
> violate the law and disregard the rights of Americans, they will be  
> given an
> after-the-fact free pass," Leahy said.
>
>     "If we are to close the courthouse door to some 40 litigants  
> who are now
> claiming that their privacy has been invaded, it seems to me we are
> undercutting a major avenue of redress."
>     --Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pa.)The FISA Amendments Act is the  
> Senate's
> attempt to overhaul a temporary wiretapping law called the Protect  
> America
> Act, which was hurriedly passed by Congress in August. That bill  
> broadened
> the Bush administration's ability to spy on foreign communications  
> routed
> through the United States without a warrant, which the bill's  
> primarily
> Democratic critics argue threatens Americans' civil liberties.
>
>     The existing law, set to expire on February 1, granted legal  
> immunity to
> private companies that assist the U.S. government in its electronic
> surveillance going forward. But the Bush administration has now  
> threatened
> to veto any proposed renewal of the law that does not shield  
> wiretapping
> cooperation in the past as well.
>
>     Kenneth Wainstein, assistant attorney general for national  
> security at
> the U.S. Department of Justice, strongly discouraged politicians at
> Wednesday's hearing from endorsing anything but blanket immunity  
> for the
> communications companies. He said protecting communications  
> providers from
> lawsuits is important to national security as a whole because  
> "every little
> nugget of information that comes out in the course of this  
> litigation helps
> our enemies."
>
>     "Any company that assisted the government in defending our  
> national
> security deserves our gratitude, not an avalanche of lawsuits,"  
> Wainstein
> said in written testimony.
>
>     Indemnification would also be the wrong approach, Wainstein said,
> because it would still require communications companies to go  
> through the
> process of litigation. He argued that could potentially inflict  
> damage to
> their corporate reputations--or even endanger employees working  
> overseas if
> terrorists or surveillance targets catch wind of the role those  
> companies
> are playing. Furthermore, he added, forcing the government to foot the
> companies' legal bills would be an unacceptable burden on American
> taxpayers.
>
>     Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) suggested that perhaps  
> Congress could
> cap the amount of damages handed out in such cases in an effort to  
> ease the
> taxpayer burden. "This isn't a mistake made by the taxpayers, it's  
> a mistake
> by the government," she said.
>
>     Leahy grilled Wainstein at length on why retroactive immunity is
> necessary at all. A report accompanying the Senate Intelligence  
> Committee's
> approved bill says that at regular intervals between 2001 and early  
> 2007,
> the Bush administration presented electronic communications  
> providers with
> letters saying the president or the attorney general had certified the
> various wiretapping requests as lawful.
>
>     Given those letters, "if you feel secure in what you did, why  
> ask for
> further legislation?" Leahy asked Wainstein. "Why not let the  
> courts deal
> with the certifications that the president said it was legal?"
>
>     "The concern is airing out what the companies did and putting them
> through the cost, the litigation, the exposure, the difficulty of  
> litigation
> when they were really just doing something to protect the government,"
> replied Wainstein.
>
>     All Democrats present at the hearing questioned the idea of  
> granting
> immunity, with Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.)
> growing particularly animated.
>
>     "Isn't it reasonable to say the company has a statutory  
> obligation to
> protect my identity and to only give it up for a legitimate,
> statutorily-recognized purpose?" Durbin asked Wainstein, who  
> responded that
> he thought all of the companies who have assisted the government  
> "acted out
> of patriotic duty."
>
>     With the exception of Specter, most Republicans on the committee
> defended the Bush administration's position, asking Wainstein  
> questions
> intended to tout the importance of surveilling the enemies of the  
> United
> States at wartime.
>
>     "We should be bending over backward to ensure they are  
> protected in that
> assistance for the national good," said Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.).
>
>     Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) said he didn't think the companies  
> should be
> punished for "doing what their country asked them to do," allowing  
> those who
> filed lawsuits in the process to discover "everything they can  
> discover
> about the most top secret program the government has."
>
>
> <070131fd_techhouse.jpg>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet