The Fed Who Blew the Whistle

Tamm was right in doing what he did. The FBI should be investigating all those who knew of the program and DIDN'T blow the whistle, including those who intitiated it. As Ben Franklin said, "The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either." This administration's attitude of arrogance and disdain towards our laws is embarrassing as well as criminal. If there was a problem with the FISA court not being able to process requests quickly enough then the system should have been overhauled - not bypassed. Using the pretext of "national security" as a shield against any oversight or accountability is the epitomy of irony. When a government authorizes rendition programs and spying on its own citizens (without enough evidence to get a "real" court order) then I would say our security may be more threatened from within than without. The message, from this same government, after 9/11 that we should continue with our lives as normal so that the terrorists wouldn't "win" seems to have been lost on the very people who came up with it.

Its funny that this article has come out in conjunction with the opening of Frost/Nixon. The scene where Nixon states that "if the president does it, it isn't illegal" comes to mind. I'm afraid this violation by the current administration is only the tip of an iceberg and we will undoubtedly learn of much more in the years ahead. The Bush / Cheney apologists will (continue to) have their work cut out for them.

As an engineer who has held a Department of Defense Secret or Top Secret security clearance for many years and as an American citizen who does not really want our nations secrets turned over to the New York Times, our enemies, or anyone else who is not authorized, I am incensed at your attempted justification for this slob ILLEGALLY releasing this classified information. If there is proof that he did this, he should be arrested and tried. You make it sound like he was a good old boy who was just trying to help. He is a CRIMINAL if he did release this information to the New York Times. Partisanship does not have a place when it comes to the security of our country. Shame on you and anyone who tries to protect this guy!

Tamm also took oaths to protect the very information he holds and take appropriate action, meaning by law, to reprot any discrepancies and he did not do that.

This son of a bitch needs to go to jail for treason! As someone who was "read on" to high level information, he signed an agreement with his employer (the US Government) that he would not disclose information that he has been trusted with. I say give him the chair!

Tamm did wrong by not following policy and procedures. He gave up classified inforamtion. He did report to his supervisors who did not repsond. There are avenues in place like a hotline that he should have called. It is non-government and would ave followed protocol to investigate. He actually did more harm then good.

What he did was commit treason! Why are you applauding someone who should be executed for his crime? When her was "read on" to the information he was, he signed a Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement (CINA). It spelled out with great clarity what would happen if he disclosed classified information. Execute this SOB.

I cant help but laugh at those who think Bush has violated the Constitution. Even if he had it would not be close to the most egregious presidential infractions. We had a president lock up one hundred thousand US citizens for over four years, strip them of thier possesion, hold them without court order or even a hearing, and screen all their private correspondence. Is he regarded as the worst president in history by the left. Heck no they love FDR. We had another president who suspended habius corpus, used the military to keep opposing senators from voting if he thought they would oppose him and abolished a right guarenteed in the Constitution by proclamation, No court or congressional action just presidential fiat. Do we consider Abe the worst president of all time? No he had his own monument. We even had a president admit to lying under oath in a federal court proceding. Even Scooter Libby told the truth in court, he just lied to the justice department. Do we think Clinton a criminal? Now becasue the justice department eavesdrops on calls from us citizens to foreigners Bush is the worst violater of the Constitution ever? does that really make sense to anyone?

Mr. Tamm,

You are a hero. The Oath to the Constitution DOES mean something to some of these people, and that is important.

We have a federal government that is a racketeering operation, and it needs to stop. It doesn't matter who is in office, the entire two party system is a scam anyway, this isn't a right/left or rep/dem issue - it's an AMERICAN issue, and it's a constitutional issue, and anyone who thinks that the executive should have the right to break the law and disregard their oaths to the constitution needs to spend a year in a Banana Republic (a real one, but don;t worry, if things don't change you'll have yoiur chance without even having to travel).

Good work Mr. Tamm.....

The argument isn't that he report a crime it is how he did it. The FBI is going after him for divulging classified information inappropriately. They can come after him because he broke the law. So is it OK to go above the law to reprot it?

If, as the article indicates, Tamm was never briefed on the NSA's operation that according to NEWSWEEK's article "seemed to be spying" on American citizens", how then, could he know the entire scope of the NSA" investigations? NEWSWEEK's article states that NSA activity was only instigated after information was gleaned from cell phones or computers taken from captured terorists. And that would indicate that the NSA would only have been monitoring INCOMMING phone calls to the US. After suspicious activity was confirmed by NSA intercepts, then and only then did the government "data mine" that information for other sources that could lead to terrorist machinations here in the US. Mr. Tamm would like you to believe that he acted out of concern for the safety of all Americans as he upheld the honor of the Constitution. Mr. Tamm is being disingenous. He acted out af a sense of misguided self-righteous patriotism that ended up being more self serving than patriotic. He deserves to be prosecuted for his error in judgement that cost the United States a great deal in giving terrorists advance knowledge on just how sophisticated we are in uncovering their diabolical machinations.

A liar is a liar no matter how hard someone tries to make them honest. This man is a lia. He swore to keep secrets secret, but he refused to do so. I was in that group at one time, but it was an "atomic clearance". What if I had decided to give the Russian KGB sensitive information that would have destroyed the United States. I had that information in my safe at one time. Would I have been wrong?
He should be put in jail and kept there. All of the Newsweek people who participated should also go to jail for 10 to 20 years.

Oh, and if your wondering why there are people posting IN FAVOR of illegal surveillance, don't get angry. Who do you think they work for? If they have time to track phone calls, they probably have time to post on news articles, too. ; )

ocodan, I beg to differ about Plame's status. Fitzpatrick had to allege all of the elements of the crime in order for an indictment to withstand judicial scutiny. In press interviews, he stated that in his opinion, Plame was covert. However, the CIA would never clarify Plames status. There was never any evidence adduced by Fitzpatrick that Plame was covert. Under the law an alledged fact not supported by evidence must be presumed to be false.

Tamm is a criminal. His interest in in Bush Hate and not the American People. I assume Obama will reverse many Bush programs to fight terrorism which will result in another 911. They Americans will appreciate George Bush.

Arrest him for TREASON now.

"He did not swear to conceal crimes."

It's not clear they were "crimes" because of the way the surveillance was conducted. He made a judgment, himself, on his own, that the activity was "illegal". Subsequent legal discussion has NOT come up with any definitive determination one way or the other, because it falls into a gray area.

Additionally, the current law, as represented after the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (HR 3773), sponsored by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) and cosponsored by 7 other Democratic colleagues:

1. Clarifies that no court warrant is required to intercept communications of non-US Persons [wikipedia.org] when both ends of the communications are outside the United States. (Even when the interception occurs within the US.)

2. Requires an individualized court warrant from the FISA Court when targeting US Persons. (Same as previous law.)

A warrant is not required to intercept foreign traffic. A warrant is also not required to determine which traffic meets this requirement. A warrant is, and always has been, required for the targeted interception of the content of traffic of US Persons. (A US Person may still be a party to a communication where one or more endpoints of the communication do not require a warrant, as long as identifying and other information relating to the US Person is protected as required by law.)

No, you can't see what it's doing, nor can any court (save, perhaps, FISC); that would disable the entire notion of secret foreign intelligence collection (which does not require, and never has required, court oversight when US Persons are not involved). That's where Congressional intelligence oversight comes in, and that's the whole purpose of it being there. Intelligence is a difficult balance in a free and open society. But, believe it or not, the primary mission and purpose of the United States' foreign intelligence apparatus is just that -- foreign intelligence, albeit updated to have some semblance of relevance in the digital world.