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

[Steven]

Actually Katie, you are not the perp. I found your post shocking, but 
quite acceptable.

Katie Allnutt wrote:
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>