Here are several editorials from around the country about ..., well, it's all here. I wish there were some clear path to getting out of this mess other than urging others to do something. But as that seems to be the path, we should do it informed and with determination to preserve our liberties. Especially as we'll probably learn of other invasions and horrors from whistleblowers, whenever. We're living in dangerous times, with 3 years before the next election and the sad reality that people get used to increasing oppression, inch by inch. Let's not. Ed
Message: 15 Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 10:51:13 -0500 (EST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [NYTr] Domestic liberties require protection To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (NYTr List) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 The Denver Post - Dec 17, 2005 http://www.denverpost.com/editorials/ci_3316843 Editorial Domestic liberties require protection The Senate rejects renewal of the Patriot Act and reports circulate that the president authorized NSA domestic surveillance without court approval. At a time when Congress is balking at government encroachment on individual liberties, it was startling to learn that the top-secret National Security Agency has been conducting domestic surveillance without court approval. The agency's charter is to monitor international communication circuits, but it apparently got the go-ahead in an executive order signed sub rosa by President Bush. The revelation came on the day the U.S. Senate wisely rejected reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act, which gave law enforcement broad new powers in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Key provisions of the law will expire Dec. 31 without action from Congress. We again urge the president and his loyalists to adopt revisions of the law passed unanimously by the Senate this summer. The so-called Safe Act contains safeguards meant to ensure protection of civil liberties. Opposition to a mindless reauthorization of the entire Patriot Act comes from both sides of the ideological spectrum and from members of both political parties. And no wonder. Friday's revelation about NSA spying demonstrates that the administration has lost its sense of balance between essential anti-terrorism tools and encroachment on liberties. What's the cliché here? If we give up our liberties in the name of anti-terrorism, the terrorists have already won. The NSA spying underscores the need for proper checks and balances. Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies at George Washington University, called the NSA spying - first reported by The New York Times - "as shocking a revelation as we have ever seen from the Bush administration." She said, "It is, I believe, the first time a president has authorized government agencies to violate a specific criminal prohibition and eavesdrop on Americans." Indeed, The Times said some NSA officials were so concerned about the legality of the program that they refused to participate. Administration officials would not confirm the report, but when asked about it, the president told PBS's Jim Lehrer that whatever steps he takes are to protect the American people, and that "decisions made are made understanding we have an obligation to protect the civil liberties of the American people." Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, called the spying "inappropriate" and said his panel would conduct hearings. A congressional review is absolutely critical. If there are reasons to grant the NSA new powers, it should be debated and decided by Congress, not authorized in secret. Copyright 2005 The Denver Post ------------------------------ Message: 16 Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 10:52:13 -0500 (EST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [NYTr] Big Brother Bush: Another Step Toward Police State To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (NYTr List) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Pittsburgh Post-Gazette - Dec 18, 2005 http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05352/623818.stm Editorial Big Brother Bush The president took a step toward a police state The Bush administration is continuing its assault on Americans' privacy and freedom in the name of the war on terrorism. First, in 2002, according to extensive reporting in The New York Times on Friday, it secretly authorized the National Security Agency to intercept and keep records of Americans' international phone and e-mail messages without benefit of a previously required court order. Second, it has permitted the Department of Defense to get away with not destroying after three months, as required, records of American Iraq war protesters in the Pentagon's Threat and Local Observation Notice, or TALON, database. Both practices mean that a government agency is maintaining information on Americans, reminiscent of the Johnson and Nixon administrations' approach to Vietnam War protesters. The existence of those records should be seen against a background of the Bush administration's response to criticism of the Iraq war by retired Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson. His wife's career at the CIA was ended in revenge for an article he wrote unmasking a dodgy piece of intelligence that President Bush had used in a State of the Union message to seek to support his decision to go to war. It appears that the phone and e-mail messages of thousands of Americans and foreigners resident in America have been or are being monitored and recorded by the NSA. Such action is not supposed to be taken without an application to and an order approved by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Mr. Bush issued an executive order in 2002, months after the Sept. 11, 2001, attack, removing -- secretly -- that legal safeguard of Americans' privacy and civil rights. The Pentagon's action as part of TALON will be put forward as an oversight, but the idea of the Department of Defense maintaining files on American war protesters, perhaps with easy cross-reference to the NSA's records based on the results of their monitoring of phone calls and e-mails of potentially those same protesters, makes possible a very serious violation of Americans' civil rights. Without a serious leap of imagination, particularly with the list of those under surveillance not available to anyone outside the NSA and the Pentagon, it is also possible to project that political critics of the Bush administration could end up among those being tracked. The Nixon administration, a previous Republican administration beleaguered by war critics, maintained "enemies lists." The White House needs to tell the Pentagon promptly to destroy the records of protesters as required, within three months. It also needs promptly to tell the NSA to return to following the rules, to get the approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court before monitoring Americans' communications. The idea that all of this is being done to us in the name of national security doesn't wash; that is the language of a police state. Those are the unacceptable actions of a police state. ------------------------------ Message: 17 Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 10:53:01 -0500 (EST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [NYTr] Unconstitutional Surveillance puts rights at risk To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (NYTr List) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Kansas City Star - Dec. 18, 2005 http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/opinion/13432212.htm Editorial National Security Agency Surveillance puts rights at risk The Bush administration's secret use of the National Security Agency to spy on people within the United States without court-approved warrants raises immediate legal and constitutional concerns. The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution forbids "unreasonable searches" and sets out specific requirements for warrants, including "probable cause." Congress needs to step in quickly to find out exactly what has happened. Lawmakers must make it clear to President Bush that, as the Supreme Court noted last year, the struggle with foreign enemies does not simply give him a blank check to do whatever he wants. The judicial system that the Bush administration keeps trying to bypass may also need to weigh in again at this point. The courts have a responsibility to protect the public's Fourth Amendment rights. On Friday, The New York Times reported that the National Security Agency, a particularly secretive piece of the U.S. intelligence system that has focused in the past on gathering information abroad, has been eavesdropping without warrants on hundreds and perhaps thousands of people in the United States. Officials say most of the surveillance targets were never charged with crimes. Even though Bush approved this project in 2002, some intelligence officials feared that they were breaking laws and might be subject to criminal prosecution. Concerns about the program were also reportedly raised by the judge who oversees the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court. That court is where the administration should have been seeking the appropriate warrants for the domestic surveillance it wanted. The president can hardly argue that the intelligence court would have turned a deaf ear; it grants the vast majority of the requests that it receives. Another mystery is why the White House turned to the National Security Agency for this project rather than the FBI, which handles most domestic intelligence work. There appears to have been a general air of sloppiness. The Times reported: "Several senior government officials say that when the special operation began, there were few controls on it and little formal oversight outside the NSA." In one Keystone Kops episode, the FBI, which had a warrant, and the National Security Agency, which didn't, were both monitoring the same individual. The outcry over news of the secret domestic surveillance program had an immediate impact on Capitol Hill, where a flawed effort to reauthorize parts of the Patriot Act ran into Senate trouble on Friday. Typically, the administration is offering the public only broad assurances that it has behaved properly and that there's no reason to worry about the warrantless eavesdropping. But Congress and the American public are entitled to a more complete explanation of this ill-advised project. © 2005 Kansas City Star ------------------------------ Message: 18 Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 10:53:45 -0500 (EST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [NYTr] Bigger brother (LA Times Editorial) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (NYTr List) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Los Angeles Times - Dec 18, 2005 http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-security18dec18,0,5190326.story?track=tottext Editorial Bigger brother PRESIDENT BUSH WAS CAVALIER on Friday night when he told Jim Lehrer on PBS that a report about the National Security Agency eavesdropping on U.S. citizens was "not the main story of the day." He is entitled to his own news judgment, but it reveals a lot about his willingness to disregard constitutional safeguards and civil liberties while pursuing the war on terrorism. To the rest of us, the revelation in the New York Times that the National Security Agency has been eavesdropping on people within the United States without judicial warrants was stunning. In one of the more egregious cases of governmental overreach in the aftermath of 9/11, Bush secretly authorized the monitoring, without any judicial oversight, of international phone calls and e-mail messages from the United States. The news came on the same day that Congress voted not to extend controversial aspects of the soon-to-expire Patriot Act, and on the heels of disturbing reports that the Pentagon's shadowy Counterintelligence Field Activity office has been keeping tabs on domestic antiwar groups, including monitoring Quaker meetings, under the guise of protecting military installations. The program is reminiscent of official efforts to spy on antiwar groups in the 1960s. The scandalous abuse of Americans' civil liberties in that period led in the 1970s to a new set of laws aimed at curtailing domestic espionage by intelligence agencies. To balance national security needs with our constitutional liberties, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act created secret "FISA" courts in which the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other federal agencies can covertly obtain warrants to eavesdrop on suspected spies (now terrorists too) in the United States. These courts are generally efficient and deferential to the government. Yet the Bush administration still opted to cut them out of the process in some cases; warrants are still sought to intercept all communications that took place entirely within the United States. Some critics say the FISA courts are too slow to issue decisions in an environment in which every minute counts, and that Cold War laws are ill-suited for a war on amorphous terrorist cells. If that's the case, the administration and Congress should have worked together to alter the courts' procedures or to amend the law. Instead, the White House unilaterally opted to exempt much of its antiterrorism efforts from any kind of judicial oversight - just as it tried doing with its policies regarding detainees. The Supreme Court has already reined in the executive branch on that score, and the NSA's eavesdropping, arguably a violation of both the law and the Constitution, may lead to even greater legal woes for the president. Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, called reports of the NSA practices clearly unacceptable and said he would hold hearings early next year. There will be plenty to ask about. One early defense of the program is a claim by the administration that it had to be implemented quietly - the president authorized it in a classified order - because otherwise terrorists would be alerted to its existence and work to evade it. But those same suspected terrorists would have already known that they might be wiretapped with the aid of a secret warrant. What is the difference? Last week may come to be seen as a tipping point in the public's attitude, one that will cause the administration to reverse its encroachment on rights in the name of security. The report of the NSA's unsupervised eavesdropping program helped defeat an extension of certain controversial provisions of the Patriot Act in the Senate on Friday. Now even sympathetic lawmakers can be expected to view the Patriot Act more skeptically. The revelations about the NSA raise two fundamental questions about the administration's rationale for increased powers: If it's already spying on its own citizens, then why does it need the Patriot Act? Alternatively, if it's already spying on its own citizens, how can it be trusted with the Patriot Act? This administration has yet to fully acknowledge that with greater powers must come greater accountability. As for the Defense Department's counterterrorism database, the Pentagon was forced on Thursday to acknowledge that it hadn't followed its own guidelines requiring the deletion of information on American citizens who clearly don't pose a security risk. Imagine that: a domestic military intelligence program that failed to abide by its own safeguards. Given this administration's history, none of these developments is especially surprising. But the latest revelations may serve as a timely reminder of why the American constitutional system requires the judiciary - the third branch of government - to review the actions of the executive branch when necessary to protect the people's liberty. Copyright 2005 Los Angeles Times ------------------------------ Message: 19 Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 10:55:27 -0500 (EST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [NYTr] Bush's Warrantless Surveillance of US Citizens To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (NYTr List) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 St. Petersburg Times - December 18, 2005 http://www.sptimes.com/2005/12/18/news_pf/Opinion/Warrantless_surveilla.shtml President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to spy on people in the United States without first gaining court approval. Editorial Warrantless Surveillance President Bush apparently believes that fighting terrorism justifies any action he chooses, no matter how extralegal. But the United States is a nation of laws, and the president is constrained by them, too. That is why Bush's unilateral authorization granting the National Security Agency the power to wiretap American citizens and others in the United States without a warrant is so dangerously ill-conceived and contrary to this nation's guiding principles. Just as the Senate was considering the reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act and debating the safeguards needed to protect Americans from excessive government snooping, it was revealed that the NSA has been spying on potentially thousands of people in this country, without first going to a court for approval. This is part of an imperial presidency that has emerged under Bush since the 9/11 terrorist attacks. On the authority of the executive branch alone, the administration has imprisoned people for years without charge, captured suspects and put them in secret overseas prisons, and engaged in interrogation techniques that violate domestic law and international treaties. Now the New York Times report on more spying reveals that the dictates of the Fourth Amendment, requiring a showing of probable cause before someone's privacy can be invaded, have been set aside upon the president's sole say-so. The NSA has authority to intercept phone calls, Internet communications and other signal intelligence off American shores without first having to obtain a warrant. But the agency has always recognized that no domestic spying could take place without court approval. For these purposes, a special foreign intelligence court is always available and agents usually can obtain wiretaps within hours. The court accommodates the need for secrecy while providing the constitutionally required judicial oversight. It was established after it came to light in the 1970s that the country's intelligence services were surveilling Vietnam War protesters and those engaged in the civil rights movement. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court rarely turns down a wiretap request, but it is there to ensure that the intelligence services respect individual rights in the course of their work. Members of Congress are rightly expressing shock and concern that the NSA has been engaging in warrantless eavesdropping on international phone calls initiated inside the United States. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., is promising to hold hearings early next year to investigate the administration's surveillance program. This is a positive step. Until recently, Congress has relinquished much of its oversight duties - whether due to party loyalty or fear of challenging a wartime president - and left it to the courts to define limits on presidential power. But with Congress finally debating issues such as the use of torture, the maintenance of secret CIA prisons and the holding of ghost detainees, there seems to be new resolve to challenge the Bush administration's willingness to ignore constitutional protections it deems inconvenient. Those efforts are supremely welcome and can't come soon enough. © Copyright 2003 St. Petersburg Times. ------------------------------ Message: 20 Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 10:56:35 -0500 (EST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [NYTr] Bush: Unrelenting political setbacks To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (NYTr List) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii AFP - Dec 18, 2005 http://www.afp.com/english/news/stories/051218123933.7mrf9igu.html Bush goes on the offensive as political battles multiply WASHINGTON (AFP) - Amid unrelenting political setbacks, US President George W. Bush has gone on the offensive, slamming Congress for stalling an anti-terrorism law and defending his decision to spy on Americans. The decision to block renewal of the USA Patriot Act is "irresponsible" and "endangers the lives of our citizens," Bush declared in an unusual televised broadcast of his weekly radio address. In the same address Bush acknowledged and took full responsibility for wiretapping of Americans disclosed by the New York Times on Friday. Despite parliamentary elections in Iraq Thursday and their potential to improve sentiment about the Iraq war, the domestic political climate remains very difficult for the US president, and shows no signs of letting up. After accepting on Thursday Congress' desire to explicitly reaffirm a ban on torture because a standoff risked blocking the defense budget, Bush suffered another setback on Friday. Yet again, it was methods used in the war on terror that planted trouble in Congress. Republican headquarters was unable to prevent the blocking of the Patriot Act in the Senate because of concern among majority Republicans that new powers granted law enforcement agencies in their counterterrorism investigations could lead to eavesdropping on citizens and their persecution. The simultaneous disclosure that Bush has authorized wiretaps on hundreds, maybe even thousands of people, could have a problematic, even devastating impact on the future of the Patriot Act, said Arlen Specter, the influential Republican chairmen of the Senate Judiciary Committee. But the president, acting in the name of national security, sought Saturday to sweep all the worries aside. "The terrorists want to attack America again and inflict even greater damage than they did on September the 11th," Bush said. This threat, according to Bush, not only justifies new resources for law enforcement agencies but also a highly-classified wiretapping program that he said he authorized "in the weeks following the (September 11, 2001) terrorist attacks" and planned to re-authorize again "as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from Al-Qaeda and related groups." Democratic Senator Russ Feingold, who has been waging a battle against the Patriot Act, immediately accused the president of trying to play on fears to pursue strictly political objectives. "What he's doing, I believe, is illegal," Feingold said Saturday on CNN television. Even though the fate of the Patriot Act could be President Bush's most nettlesome political problem, it is by no means the only one. Congress, which was supposed to finish its work and adjourn for Christmas holidays, had to continue working through the weekend in order to wrap up unfinished business. Many of the administration's priorities are stalled or about to die. Because of fissures in Republican ranks, re-authorization of tax cuts, adoption of new spending cuts, and the defense budget still have not been approved. Work on many of these bills is complicated by the desire of the Bush administration and many Republican lawmakers to open a pristine natural area, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, to oil exploration. This proposal, which was to be included into the spending cuts program, could now be attached to the defense budget, which could open a new political battle over the reserve. ------------------------------ Message: 21 Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 10:57:34 -0500 (EST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [NYTr] Bush facing angry criticism, challenges to his authority To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (NYTr List) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 AP - Dec 18, 2005 http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/B/BUSH?SITE=VTBRA&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT Bush Defends Secret Spying in the U.S. By JENNIFER LOVEN Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) -- Facing angry criticism and challenges to his authority in Congress, President Bush on Saturday unapologetically defended his administration's right to conduct secret post-Sept. 11 spying in the United States as "critical to saving American lives." Bush said congressional leaders had been briefed on the operation more than a dozen times. That included Democrats as well as Republicans in the House and Senate, a GOP lawmaker said. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said she had been told on several occasions that Bush had authorized unspecified activities by the National Security Agency, the nation's largest spy agency. She said she had expressed strong concerns at the time, and that Bush's statement Saturday "raises serious questions as to what the activities were and whether the activities were lawful." Often appearing angry in an eight-minute address, the president made clear he has no intention of halting his authorizations of the monitoring activities and said public disclosure of the program by the news media had endangered Americans. Bush's willingness to publicly acknowledge a highly classified spying program was a stunning development for a president known to dislike disclosure of even the most mundane inner workings of his White House. Just a day earlier he had refused to talk about it. Since October 2001, the super-secret National Security Agency has eavesdropped on the international phone calls and e-mails of people inside the United States without court-approved warrants. Bush said steps like these would help fight terrorists like those who involved in the Sept. 11 plot. "The activities I have authorized make it more likely that killers like these 9/11 hijackers will be identified and located in time," Bush said. "And the activities conducted under this authorization have helped detect and prevent possible terrorist attacks in the United States and abroad." News of the program came at a particularly damaging and delicate time. Already, the administration was under fire for allegedly operating secret prisons in Eastern Europe and shipping suspected terrorists to other countries for harsh interrogations. The NSA program's existence surfaced as Bush was fighting to save the expiring provisions of the USA Patriot Act, the domestic anti-terrorism law enacted after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Democrats and a few Republicans who say the law gives so much latitude to law enforcement officials that it threatens Americans' constitutional liberties succeeded Friday in stalling its renewal. So Bush scrapped the version of his weekly radio address that he had already taped - on the recent elections in Iraq - and delivered a live speech from the Roosevelt Room in which he lashed out at the senators blocking the Patriot Act as irresponsible and confirmed the NSA program. Bush said his authority to approve what he called a "vital tool in our war against the terrorists" came from his constitutional powers as commander in chief. He said that he has personally signed off on reauthorizations more than 30 times. "The American people expect me to do everything in my power under our laws and Constitution to protect them and their civil liberties," Bush said. "And that is exactly what I will continue to do, so long as I'm the president of the United States." James Bamford, author of two books on the NSA, said the program could be problematic because it bypasses a special court set up by the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to authorize eavesdropping on suspected terrorists. "I didn't hear him specify any legal right, except his right as president, which in a democracy doesn't make much sense," Bamford said in an interview. "Today, what Bush said is he went around the law, which is a violation of the law - which is illegal." Retired Adm. Bobby Inman, who led the NSA from 1977 to 1981, said Bush's authorization of the eavesdropping would have been justified in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks "because at that point you couldn't get a court warrant unless you could show probable cause." "Once the Patriot Act was in place, I am puzzled what was the need to continue outside the court," Inman added. But he said, "If the fact is valid that Congress was notified, there will be no consequences." Susan Low Bloch, a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University Law Center, said Bush was "taking a hugely expansive interpretation of the Constitution and the president's powers under the Constitution. That view was echoed by congressional Democrats. "I tell you, he's President George Bush, not King George Bush. This is not the system of government we have and that we fought for," Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., told The Associated Press. Added Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.: "The Bush administration seems to believe it is above the law." Bush defended the program as narrowly designed and used "consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution." He said it is employed only to intercept the international communications of people inside the U.S. who have been determined to have "a clear link" to al-Qaida or related terrorist organizations. Government officials have refused to provide details, including defining the standards used to establish such a link or saying how many people are being monitored. The program is reviewed every 45 days, using fresh threat assessments, legal reviews, and information from previous activities under the program, the president said. Intelligence officials involved in the monitoring receive extensive training in civil liberties, he said. Bush said leaders in Congress have been briefed more than a dozen times. Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., told House Republicans that those informed were the top Republican and Democratic leaders of the House and Senate and of each chamber's intelligence committees. "They've been through the whole thing," Hoekstra said. The president had harsh words for those who revealed the program to the media, saying they acted improperly and illegally. The surveillance was first disclosed in Friday's New York Times. "As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have," Bush said. "The unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk." Bush has more to worry about on Capitol Hill than his difficulties with the Patriot Act. Lawmakers have begun challenging Bush on his Iraq policy, reflecting polling that shows half of the country is not behind him on the war. On Sunday, the president was continuing his effort to reverse that by giving his fifth major speech in less than three weeks on Iraq. One bright spot for the White House was a new poll showing that a strong majority of Americans oppose, as does Bush and most lawmakers, an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. The AP-Ipsos poll found 57 percent of those surveyed said the U.S. military should stay until Iraq is stabilized. [Associated Press Special Correspondent David Espo and writers Andrew Bridges and Will Lester contributed to this report.] © 2005 The Associated Press. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> DonorsChoose.org helps at-risk students succeed. Fund a student project today! http://us.click.yahoo.com/t7dfYD/FpQLAA/E2hLAA/7gSolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Digest: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
