<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Lou King wrote:<br>
> there is relative little information generally available (for me)
to get /outraged/ about.<br>
<br>
The point of my last email was not to generate outrage nor was it to
educate about the bill. It was to let those who are following the issue
and have some passion about it, know about our senator's position.<br>
<br>
<b>So Why</b><b> </b><b>the Outrage?</b><br>
<br>
Perhaps the spying the
government
undertook on US citizens was minimal and no big deal and perhaps it was
a
huge invasion of our privacy. The point is, we don't know, yet the
telecom law
suits threaten to make public exactly what illegal spying the
government
undertook against US citizens.<br>
<br>
As I see it, the telecom immunity is <b>not</b> about protecting the
telecoms. That could be done by other means (e.g. limiting damages,
etc.). Instead, <b>the immunity provision is about protecting the
government - </b>so we cannot learn about the government's illegal
spying on us.<b> </b>And
that is why I am outraged. I want to know if and by how much our rights
were violated.<br>
<br>
63% of Democrats voted to remove the telecom immunity.<br>
0% of Republicans voted to remove the telecom immunity. 100% of
Republicans voted to leave it in.<br>
(The percents are of votes cast by each party).<br>
<br>
And yes, 37% of Democrats voted to include the immunity. Ms Mikulski
was among them.<br>
<br>
<b>> I also see that not only did Mikulski vote for this bill, but
so did 60% of the Senate Democrats </b><br>
<br>
The bill as a whole has merits and is likely in the best interest of
the nation's security - although some may feel differently. You are
correct in that the whole bill was supported by a very large majority
of Democrats. The problem
here is not the whole bill but rather the provision that gives the
retroactive
immunity. Regarding the immunity, a huge majority of Democrats (63%)
voted to not give immunity. The bill would likely have gotten near 100%
of Democrats had the immunity provision been stripped.<br>
<br>
<b>What We Know About the Spying</b><br>
<br>
News reports state that the domestic wiretapping was NOT court ordered.
Not even
the secret FISA court approved it. We know that at least one telecom
company (Qwest) refused to go along unless they were shown a court
order,
and that other telecoms did go along with the request even without a
court
order. Wiretaps without a court
order are illegal - although there are some emergency provisions that
allow them in limited cases and there is the secret FISA court
that can grant them secretly when security issues are involved. So it
is possible the wiretaps were legal. Of course, then there is no need
for immunity. There is a lot we do not know about this spying. Some
news reports state it included calls that were strictly domestic -
calls that both originated and terminated in the US and that the spying
was a huge sweep on millions of phone calls and emails. <br>
<br>
So yes I am outraged - I do not give up my freedoms lightly.<br>
<br>
Here are the official roll call votes to remove the immunity provision:<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00015">http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00015</a><br>
<br>
-Rob<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>