Thomas Tamm is a hero, and like all who have stood up against Bush and his administration's lawbreaking and other wrongdoing they want to persecute the man of integrity. They want to crush Tamm who was moved to action by the corrupt and illegal wiretapping of U.S. citizen without warrants. We are a country that has been in the hands of real certifiable criminals. President Obama will not allow this man to be mowed over by Bush and Cheney. Hopefully when Obama hears about this he will give Tamm a job of responsibility in the honest government Obama will have. Bush and Cheney are making Nixon look like a very decent fellow.
The Fed Who Blew the Whistle
-
Posted By: chillfour@yahoo.com @ 12/15/2008 3:55:31 PM
-
Posted By: Shooshie @ 12/14/2008 12:14:08 PM
I said my piece below, but I have a question for those who think Tamm did the wrong thing: do you really think GW Bush has made the world, or even the USA, a safer place? That's like hiring an arsonist to keep the forest safe. He starts burning a few trees just to be sure everything is safe, then next thing you know there's no forest left, and the arsonist is braying that he fixed it so that nobody will be able to burn it down ever again. Or what was the famous line from the Vietnam era? "We had to destroy the village to save it." So is it ok to toss aside the Constitution like a scrap of old paper, to "protect" us? You think history will sort it out? Your leader said something like "Oh, who cares about history? We'll all be dead." Not exactly inspiring or courageous words. Not very smart, either.
We do things differently in the USA. That's why we're different. Or... why we WERE different. Now that we fight dirty like our enemies, without regard for law, do you feel safer?
Shooshie-
Posted By: Shanshayla @ 12/14/2008 12:21:18 PM
Has Bush made us safer? We were being attacked on a regular basis throughout the Clinton years. His administration did next to nothing and attacks continued. After 9/11, Bush took a stand and took the fight to them.
Shoooshie, in the over eight years since 9/11, would you please tell us how many times we've been attacked?-
Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/15/2008 3:53:18 PM
It hasn't been over 8 years.
-
Posted By: J Frank Parnell @ 12/14/2008 6:34:01 PM
It's amazing, and telling, that some people want to begin an accounting of Bush's "protection" of us on 9-12-01.
-
Posted By: Shanshayla @ 12/15/2008 8:47:22 AM
Of we do, because it's a fact. As mentioned above, there were 11000 attacks worldwide after 9/11. None her in America. Go ahead give credit anywhere but where it belongs... but where would that be?
BTW, the idea that they attacked 11000 times around the world, but just didn't want to here in America won't wash.
-
-
Posted By: zeth006 @ 12/15/2008 7:51:53 AM
I believe someone already replied to your previous post by stating that the number of terrorist attacks worldwide increased from 4,000 to 11,000 a year when Bush took office. Wanna explain that?
-
Posted By: Shanshayla @ 12/15/2008 8:42:51 AM
First, those attacks are not Bush's fault. As if the 4000 were before he took office?
And of the 11000 worldwide after 9/11, how many were here in America? Wanna explain that?
-
-
-
-
Posted By: ArthurFordandZaphod @ 12/15/2008 3:53:14 PM
Enter Your Comment
-
Posted By: hingalls @ 12/15/2008 3:51:06 PM
Tamm did not follow procedures. after tellig supervisors for which they idn't do anything he sould have called the hotline to report such incidents without divulging classified information to the public. This kind of information can cause more harm then good.
-
Posted By: splashy9 @ 12/15/2008 3:47:25 PM
He's a hero of the first degree. We need to know when criminal activity that can hurt is is happening.
-
Posted By: annelmacdo @ 12/15/2008 3:22:19 PM
HOORAY FOR tOM tAMM. i AM PROUDOF WHAT HE HAD DONE!
-
Posted By: sieg6529 @ 12/15/2008 2:40:45 PM
I think it is great that he stood up against illegal practices by our government. He took an oath, but so did the president which is even more sacred "to protect and uphold the constitution of the United States of America". Bush broke that oath by secretly spying on US citizens, and somebody had to call him on it. These man should get a full pardon by President-Elect Obama.
-
Posted By: lodown @ 12/15/2008 2:22:55 PM
It's a shame that when a person does the right thing he is hunted down like a dog. There should be something in place to help him. Why are they not going after Bush???
-
Posted By: one4gipper @ 12/14/2008 5:44:10 PM
Shanshayla, you and I agree that al Qaeda should not enjoy the protection of the Fourth Amendment, and they don't so long as they are tried by military tribunal. Our bleeding hearts want to subject terrorist cambatants caught out of uniform to criminal trial in the United States. However, a trial in a criminal court would grant the terrorists to the same constitutional protections that American citizens enjoy. The government would be forced to expose intelligence and the means used to gather such evidence. Unlawfully obtained evidence, e.g. a information obtained by waterboarding, would be excluded. Intercepted cell phone calls would not be admissible. Sources including means of electronic surveilance would be compromised.
Under the Geneva Convention, a combatant caught out of uniform may be summarily executed. He has no rights. In addition, only countries that are signatories to the Convention enjoy its protections. A stateless terrorist has no protection. Moreover, when American troops are captured they are tortured and beheaded and their bodies dragged through the streets. There is no mutuality in giving rights to jihadists.
During WWII in the campaign to reclaim the Pacific, the Japanese did not take prisoners. In the Philippines, at the beginning of the war, when POWs were taken they could be executed at the whim of their Japanese captures. The Marines also did not take Japanese prisoners on islands such as Iwo Jima. According to my father, Japanese prisoners were marched over the hill and hosed with Thompsons. On the other hand, the war in Europe was conducted more according to the rules of war. Of course there were atrocities, but generally both the Axis powers and the Allies adhered to the rules of war. There was mutuality with the Germans.
No one can assert that al Qaida or the Taliban do not torture and kill G.I.s. In my opinion, they should be treated with civility when they start acting civilized.-
Posted By: Vigilance @ 12/15/2008 1:46:57 PM
"Shanshayla, you and I agree that al Qaeda should not enjoy the protection of the Fourth Amendment, and they don't so long as they are tried by military tribunal. "
The purpose of the goddamned Fourth Amendment is to MAKE SURE THAT THE PEOPLE WE ARREST OR DETAIN REALLY ARE AL-QAEDA!!!!!! A GREAT NUMBER OF THEM HAVEN'T BEEN!!!!!!-
Posted By: Vigilance @ 12/15/2008 2:20:07 PM
Sorry. That was shrill. But your argument has a logical fallacy. Without due process, you won't be able to tell whether or not anybody you arrest or detain actually is guilty of what you accuse them of.
-
-
Posted By: skrekk @ 12/14/2008 11:23:13 PM
Somehow Clinton (with Patrick Fitzgerald's help) was able to capture, prosecute and imprison the 1993 WTC bombers without violating the Constitution, the Geneva Conventions, the Convention Against Torture, or the Magna Carta. And those were actual convictions...so far Bush has none under his benign rule.
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 12/14/2008 5:58:46 PM
No, you should handle terrorists like captured Somaly pirates, 200 years ago they hanged them without fair trial, now they release them, sometimes even with their boats.
-
-
Posted By: Sheldon Metz @ 12/15/2008 1:58:00 PM
Tamm should receive the Paul H. Douglas Award for Ethics in Government. Bush is a crook. Why would he be guilty of exposing a crime? I thought under the good samaritan laws, you must expose a crime.
-
Posted By: midnight05 @ 12/15/2008 1:54:50 PM
What a service he did for all of us. He may have bad days but I hope he has restful nights.
-
Posted By: NewsWkDickG @ 12/15/2008 12:58:37 PM
Extreme conservatism, including the ???trickle down??? rationalization, has much the same characteristics as found in illegal pyramid schemes. They are equal in that only a few people really benefit, that they are driven by self-interests, are infected with greed and dishonesty, are promoted by attraction to people???s self-interests and greed, and depend on taking advantage of the majority. The fraud they can perpetrate results in the collapse of the infected systems (as seen in corporate corruption, Wall Street meltdown, financial industry meltdown, auto industry collapse, religious extremism,,,) and can eventually even bring down the total economy (what we are close to today). Without the regulations, enforcement, controls, checks and balances needed to keep aggressive conservative methodology from being the run-away service of the powerful few, greed, dishonesty and self-indulgence naturally take over. As long as the focus is on total deregulation, completely open and fair-trade markets and on the unchecked pursuit of benefit for Special Interests and a select few, without real protection, consideration and concern for the majority, the natural result will be what we are experiencing today. This criticism is neither liberal thinking advocating a large ???tax and spend??? government giving to a dependent population nor is it advocating protectionism but rather is pragmatism, is simply recognizing the reality that demands moderate conservative/liberal positions and a centrist thinking that actually benefits everyone. The other choice is to continue down the road we have been on, with only very costly temporary delays, ending eventually in catastrophe.
-
Posted By: RichinNH @ 12/15/2008 1:23:02 PM
Guidance to our newly arrived immigrants should now read: Don't worry about the American Dream, we've already thought it through for you and have massed produced the Dream based not on what is in your best interests, but the collective best interests of everyone else. The trheat of run-away Conservatism? Where does history back up what you???re proposing?
-
Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/15/2008 1:27:43 PM
"but the collective best interests of everyone else. "
But isn't that what you propose by allowing your justice department to bypass FISA laws to "keep you safe"?
-
-
-
Posted By: akatz @ 12/14/2008 6:34:21 AM
RE: Cliff-N-Cali
No WAY a hero? Wrong.
He is indeed a hero. What good is it to save ourselves from Al-Qaida if we become them? What good is it to win a war only to lose our souls, subvert the Constitution, make our own citizens victims, destroy the rule of law, trample on American's rights?
What good does it do us to become scum, to become a tyrrany, to have our own elected officials operate like thugs and mafiosi and fascists?
Perhaps you are willing to give up your rights under the Constitution for the perception of safety. I, and many others, am not.
Tamm is a hero.-
Posted By: Shanshayla @ 12/14/2008 8:50:54 AM
If we become Al Aaeda? Of your's and Cliff-N-Cali's posts, his is grounded in fact. These monsters come here to kill us in any way they can and have certainly done so. Your idea that we have become like them by what Tamm's team did is simply not comparable. Or goal was defending Americans, not killing them. I didn't see anything in the article where this group gouged the eyes out of anyone, electrocuted anyone, or hacked anyone's head off with a machete.
You might change your mind about that "perception of safety" statement if one of those bastards ever got their hands on you.-
Posted By: Vigilance @ 12/14/2008 9:39:10 AM
You're so scared. Boogey boogey terrorist!
That's what the entire strategy of terror warfare in general, from serial killers to international terror groups, depends on - making the billions of people they can't reach as scared as the tens of thousands they can. They in and of themselves constitute an almost insignificant force compared to their opponents, so they hide in secrecy, kill as many as they can, and then depend on the enemy as a whole overexerting themselves in their rage to swat the thing that stung them.
In our case, they've depended on our own population of militants - "militant" simply in its dictionary meaning of advocating warfare - to spend as if we're fighting billions of people when our true enemies number in the tens of thousands, if that. I am utterly dumbfounded by how well this has worked.
The world has been threatened with global depression, fuel prices skyrocketed from speculative bubbles mostly caused by deregulation from advocates of the military-industrial complex - historians ought to be studying this with the intensity of World War II. An act that in and of itself cost the U.S. an estimated $40B - 9/11 - has in its response cost the country six hundred billion dollars in a needless war in Iraq, and who knows what other effects from the deregulation advocated by those same groups.
This is the military-industrial complex Eisenhower warned us of. I didn't really understand that until the last two years. I tip my head to that man across the decades for warning us of this threat. It is time for us to take greater heed of that warning.-
Posted By: Shanshayla @ 12/14/2008 10:25:34 AM
Vigilant is a better word. You either have a flippant, could care less attitude about terrorism, or you have no memory of 9/11 or the other terrorist attacks Americans have died in.
Which is it?
I suppose you naively think terrorists haven't attacked us in over eight years is because they haven't wanted to, and will never try to do so again. Of course, you're free to believe that if you want. The rest of us with common sense will remain vigilant.
BTW, your user name, at least regarding terrorism, doesn't come close to matching your attitude.-
Posted By: Vigilance @ 12/14/2008 10:35:49 AM
I could care less what you think of me. My username reflects my desire to keep a watch over you and the other angry, violent people who think "an eye for an eye" is still the way to go. I don't personally plan on letting you enable the military-industrial establishment in this country to wage any more mercenary, deregulative wars if I can do anything at all to help it.
-
Posted By: Shanshayla @ 12/14/2008 10:48:54 AM
Your previous post indicated "our true enemies number in the tens of thousands." Remember it only took a couple of dozen maniacs to pull off 9/11. And statements like "You're so scared. Boogey boogey terrorist!" isn't reflective of your desire to protect Americans.
In a perfect world, I would rather things go by the book and be perfect. We're not there, and since I have nothing to hide, and if it will help stop another attack and therefor save lives, it won't matter to me if the FBI accidentally overhears my Mom giving me her recipe for her favorite cherry pie.-
Posted By: Vigilance @ 12/15/2008 1:18:48 PM
This is a reply to your lower question:.
"Question for you... if an illegal wire tap could have prevented 9/11, would you have objected to its use before hand?"
No, I would not have. I almost decided not to answer this kind of a loaded question, as it gives you a wonderful opportunity to try to paint me as someone uncaring of American lives. That isn't the truth about me. We fought the Revolutionary War as well as World War II in order to prevent regimes that didn't give their citizens due process from keeping power. Taken together, these conflicts cost hundreds of thousands of American lives. I'm sorry for the four thousand American lives lost that day, but setting a precent to overturn the Fourth Amendment that millions of Americans have fought for is not something that honors their memory.
"We learned that just before the terror attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center, two of the hijackers called Afghanistan, perhaps, for final instructions."
The FBI apparently had a full profile on all these guys within hours after the incident, based on prior records it had of a number of the key players for suspected terrorism. We weren't spying on the wrong people - we were spying on the right ones and just happened to do a really sh1tty job of it. It shouldn't have been hard to get a warrant on these guys. If the FBI/CIA needed warrants and wouldn't have been able to get them in time, that means that the process of obtaining warrants is flawed and needs to be fixed, not thrown out the window. If they knew about these guys and didn't bother, that means that our warrant process was fine, and that there was incompetence at our intelligence agencies. My guess is that it was something of both.
I don't think you realize the importance of the Constitutional protections you want to deny people. As flippant and "unconcerned" about American lives as I seem to you, there's a converse on my side - I find you to be either ridiculously naive about what happens when due process is revoked as a principle. I tend to be very, very wary of people who claim that they don't do anything wrong the way you have, because what that tends to really mean is that the wrong things they do happen to be along the lines of approval of all the wrong things our government does, and in a similar vein to them. Frequently they'll overlook persecution of people who don't agree with them. I think there's evidence of this in your post. I think it's reflective of a very childish moral understanding of the world and a lack of study of the history of nation-states in which due process is not seen to be a major concern.
That's just my opinion, but, similar to you, it's going to stand. You want better intelligence, then fix the process of obtaining warrants. It took humanity a long, long time to get due process established even in as many places as it is. -
Posted By: Galasso @ 12/14/2008 12:07:41 PM
Shanshayla: There is a lot of truth to what you say. Lots of things "fall on the cutting room floor" when a specific thing or activity is being monitored. It is a given that a lot of people in the US do not want their telephone conversations heard by anyone - drug use and other criminal activity come to mind but that is not likely to be prosecuted if it blows the collection method. The other question is who are these "Americans" whose conversations are being intercepted? In a day and age of political correctness when you cannot ask someone's citizenship status, it is highly likely some of these "US persons" who receive calls from or make calls to telephone numbers associated with extremist groups overseas are not citizens of this country at all. As far as the FISA law is concerned, it should be used when a case is being developed for prosecution in US courts - but burdening the courts with requests for approvals in time sensitive investigations that involve rapidly changing phone matrixes - while developing a case - would suffocate the process and simply not work to a defensive advantage for the country. I think cherry pie recipes would certainly qualify for the cutting room floor - and those who are squalling the loudest either have something (unrelated to terrorism) in their lives they do not want revealed to the USG or they are knowingly associated with questionable groups. Given the hundreds of billions of phones calls that are made to and from the US, the likelihood of someone evading the IRS, marraige infidelity, pot deals, or expressing a political view that will land them in court is nil. The USG is too overworked to be interested.
-
Posted By: Shanshayla @ 12/14/2008 12:37:41 PM
Great points.... As I mentioned, in a perfect world, I would rather not see this. However until that time, I'll take a wire tap over the loss of another 3000 lives any day.
-
Posted By: Vigilance @ 12/14/2008 2:09:57 PM
I don't want to see eavesdropping and penalties against people that don't believe as you do. It's really as simple as that, for me. This is how persecutory police states start - it's always "for the good of the people" or some other rationale that looks to protect a certain segment of the populace to protect it from an external enemy, real or imagined. But to me, the second due process goes out the window, you're heading towards an unequal semi-martial state that bears a striking resemblance to the royal England we once fought a revolution to throw off the yoke of. These are the reasons our Bill of Rights was implemented.
Besides which, our prisons are already full. I don't particularly see to care the millions of minor lawbreakers jailed, and our prisons overcrowded even more horribly than they already are, because you feel like the "something to hide" that people have is a minor obstacle in the way of a "safe" country. Let's say somebody smokes pot, and the government just happens to find out in the course of a "routine" wiretapping. The government comes in and arrests them, they go to jail, they come out worse than they started, and meanwhile the country is poorer for the lost revenues and time spent locking him/her up and feeding her and paying armed guards to watch him/her 24/7. Even if the government turns a blind eye, it opens the door for all of this later. I don't think we need any more people in jail than we already have.
I'm sorry my comment seemed flip to you. I have nothing but condolences and sympathy for any of the victims of 9/11, and my comment may have been taken as disrespectful. What it was designed to indicate was a rejection of your philosophy that we ought to let fear take us into a worldwide, major conflict that we can't afford. We invaded Iraq preemptively and on false grounds because "they might have weapons". We've wasted billions and only alienated Arab youth and swelled the ranks of Hamas and Hezbollah even as we diminish al-Qaeda's power. I don't believe is that any of these policies make us safer, at home or abroad. They make ordinary citizens afraid their lives will be violated, and they violate the system of checks and balances that goes back to the very founding of our country. They violate several of the rights that we founded our country in order to establish - unless you'd prefer to go back to the point when it was perfectly acceptable to quarter soldiers in citizens' houses too, without recompense, for an indefinite period.
I and others will use our "vigilance", so to speak, to prevent you from overturning our Bill of Rights in your fear.-
Posted By: Shanshayla @ 12/14/2008 3:35:59 PM
You make it sound as if we wish to overturn the entire Bill of Rights. That couldn't be further from the truth.
Question for you... if an illegal wire tap could have prevented 9/11, would you have objected to its use before hand? We learned that just before the terror attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center, two of the hijackers called Afghanistan, perhaps, for final instructions. This is exactly the kind of communication Bush wants to intercept. I can tell you in hindsight, I would have advocated its use... and will continue to do so.
This is where you and I will remain different.
-
-
-
-
Posted By: Vigilance @ 12/14/2008 2:31:19 PM
"Your previous post indicated "our true enemies number in the tens of thousands." Remember it only took a couple of dozen maniacs to pull off 9/11."
The Taliban training camps in Afghanistan where they planned this for two years are part of a larger network that gets funding from overseas through shadow corporations and backroom deals, not to mention the actual people they worked with in training in Afghanistan, and the local elements that give them the space to operate. This isn't like suddenly 19 people all decided they hated the government and thought they'd go ram some 747s into buildings the next day.
"And statements like "You're so scared. Boogey boogey terrorist!" isn't reflective of your desire to protect Americans."
Flippant though it may have been, it reflects my desire to protect American prosperity and civil liberties from domestic elements that I believe cannot be trusted with these powers, no matter how innocuous a government may seem. I was trying to point out that the terrorists have been very successful at scaring the hell out of you and controlling your policy decisions in that way. The Bush administration has done nothing to reassure me of its good intentions with its clandestine construction of hundreds of defense-contractor-financed FISA camps and its torture policies at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. It also reflects my desire to keep nonviolent lawbreakers who just happened to be in the wrong wiretap out of the prison system. As I said, my most heartfelt condolences to any American who's lost his/her life to terrorism - I had a friend who narrowly escaped working in the Trade Towers that summer due to turning down an internship. But I believe even the slightest precedent for voluntarily turning over due process sets in motion forces that turn back the clock to times far worse than just about any terrorism.
What exactly is so hard about getting the needed warrants anyway? What was so broken about the old system? How would warrantless sneak and peek have helped prevent 9/11? The FBI had records on a few of these guys anyway and had let them go - anytime they wanted to I'm sure they could have started tailing them again. The actual training and planning was done in Afghanistan.
-
-
-
-
Posted By: Shanshayla @ 12/14/2008 10:31:03 AM
Quote: "You're so scared. Boogey boogey terrorist!"
Btw, care to make this idiotic, incredible insensitive statement to a family member of someone who died in the 9/11 attacks?-
Posted By: Vigilance @ 12/14/2008 2:13:57 PM
If I retract that single statement, would you care to respond to any of the other dozen points I was trying to debate with you?
-
Posted By: Vigilance @ 12/14/2008 10:44:08 AM
By the way, if wiretapping, the Iraq war, unilateralism, and repeal of due process have been the way to go, you might want to ask yourself why the state of New York - whose people were by and large those most directly harmed in the attacks - voted Democratic in the last three elections and why its politicians have increasingly voted against all of these things as time has gone on.
If a police state is the way to go, why does New York, even post 9-11, keep reelecting Democratic Senators who oppose these things? Why can't you get a majority of the state to back a candidate who supports the kinds of measures you support?-
Posted By: Shanshayla @ 12/14/2008 10:57:04 AM
They voted democrat because of economic conditions, not because of wire tapping. And you're going overboard. Trying to stop deadly attacks on America by the use of wire tap doesn't constitute a police state. Well, only if they're interested in my Mom's recipe for cherry pie. Lol
-
Posted By: Vigilance @ 12/14/2008 2:11:39 PM
I will not support erosion of our Bill of Rights. That's about as clear as it is for me. I don't believe you have the moral authority to say that the government ought to be able to watch me whenever it feels this is appropriate, without a warrant. You might be fine with it in your life. I'm not fine with it in mine.
-
-
-
Posted By: Vigilance @ 12/14/2008 10:37:02 AM
Are you part of that group? If not, why not let them speak for themselves instead of presuming to speak for them - and for me?
-
Posted By: Shanshayla @ 12/14/2008 11:05:54 AM
No, I'm not. But I'd bet money on the response you'd get if you said that to one of them.
-
Posted By: Doc Howl @ 12/14/2008 12:01:04 PM
"No, I'm not."
Then stop using them as whores. Thanks.-
Posted By: Pallisor @ 12/14/2008 12:41:27 PM
Typical statement when you're terrified of hearing the answer.
And you claim others here are scared! -
Posted By: Shanshayla @ 12/14/2008 12:25:00 PM
Whores? LOL!
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: Doc Howl @ 12/14/2008 12:00:14 PM
"Or goal was defending Americans, not killing them. "
And all you had to do was take a big, steamy crap all over the 4th amendment.
Patrick Henry would be so proud of you! Dropping your rights for a little supposed "protection". What a great American you are.
LOL.-
Posted By: Shanshayla @ 12/14/2008 1:27:13 PM
You're willing to play by every rule no matter the cost. My family and I are not. If intercepting a phone call from maniacal terrorists prevents them from killing my family or yours, then so be it. Our lives as well as other Americans are worth that to me. You and I think differently here.
And please, omit your usual "how does if feel to be scared" nonsense. I guess you think the people in New York on 9/11 weren't "scared?"
-
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 12/14/2008 11:50:20 AM
Proven terrorists should not have any human rights inside or outside USA (only correspondense of thouse was wiretapped).
-
Posted By: Doc Howl @ 12/14/2008 11:58:29 AM
Stop your filthy lies.
Bush also had anti-war activists, etc, tapped.-
Posted By: bighappy @ 12/14/2008 12:31:48 PM
Are you serioust? He would have been impeached immediately if it was the case. All you want to see is similarity between Bush and Hitler. Your will not find it, becides only one of them was an idiot, guess who?
-
-
-
-
Posted By: Cliff-N-Cali @ 12/14/2008 7:07:57 AM
So what are you saying!?! Its okay to let the FBI and CIA squirm and think of other ways to track these people because a few of you people are uncomfortable. Or maybe your okay with people coming into the country killing as many of us as they can. I don't know maybe you do have something to hide and it doesn't matter. When you have the NSA reporting that we can expect an attack on American soil that will take many more lives, what do you expect people to do? In the end your going to have to trust these people that we have given authority to in protecting us. It still brings to thought though. If questioning his superiors didn't work, why didn't this guy go to someone other than the New York Times?
Times?
-
-
Posted By: hoosierville @ 12/15/2008 1:12:19 PM
In the immortal words of Atrios.....simple answers to simple questions.....um, that would be hero.
-
Posted By: georgezilla @ 12/14/2008 9:36:22 PM
Most of you have no concept of what freedom and liberty are about. You have no real idea of what it means to be an American. All you think and care about is yourself. And your own pathetic and meaningless life.
Freedom and liberty are worth dieing for. YOUR freedom and liberty are worth MY life. YOU are not! But freedom and liberty are. The Constitution is there to protect your freedom and liberty. This man swore to protect and to defend it. With his life if need be. An oath that to many take and very few mean. This man is an American and a hero.
This man stood up for those ideals. He put them before his own safety. Before his family. He did this for his country. For you. Which is more then what you would do. You want your freedom and liberty. But are not willing to pay the price for them. The price for these freedoms and liberties is high. I would rather be free then safe. I would rather die free then be safe. And those that would give up freedom and liberty for safety are cowards. This man is an American. This man is a hero.
It is you who aid terrorists by being afraid. By giving up your freedom and liberty for safety. By saying that you will let their actions determine how you live. It is you that insure that they will strike again. It is you that insure that more will die because you want to be safe. It is because you are willing to give up freedom and liberty that they know that they are winning and will strike again. Because you are weak. Because you are willing to let them control how you live. Because you are willing to give up that which is most valued by Americans. Because you are willing to give up your freedom and liberty. And do it for such a small and worthless thing as safety.
You are not worth what this man has done. Freedom and liberty are. You are not worth what this man has and is going thru. Freedom and liberty are. This man is an American. This man is a hero.
And this is a man that I would stand with and willing give my life to help protect this country and its Constitution. Just so you can have those freedoms and liberties that you are so willing to give up. This man is a hero. This man is an American. Men like this make me proud to be an American too.
Someone once said ...
..." Give me Liberty or give me death." That is what being an American means. That is what being an American is about. That is why this man is an American. That is why this man is a hero. To this man I say...
... On behalf of myself, my family and my country, I thank you.
George-
Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/15/2008 12:56:13 PM
It's refreshing to see a real, live biped. Well said, sir.
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 12/14/2008 10:54:45 PM
You want to die? Please, commit suiside, let other peope live. For the sake of "Constitution" or "freedom" of all cost (like violating long-established laws or betraying other people) communists commited terrible crimes. And that time they were true believers. And their rethoric "I would rather die" usually lead to somebody else death.
-
Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/15/2008 11:41:31 AM
One of your founders, Patrick Henry, once said "Give me liberty or give me death". Liberty has never been a safe proposition. If you can't stomach liberty, move over here and enjoy CCTV cameras every ten metres, and a crippled rights charter.
However, I must warn you: despite all the intrusive measures we have taken, we still get hit by terrorists, as evidenced by the bomb at the tube station a couple of years back. The only diffence now is, we are not as free.
-
-
-
Posted By: SteveofIndiana @ 12/14/2008 7:05:16 PM
With all the Terrorist Activities going on in the world today and with the Tragic 9/11 I can Kinda See a need for Checking out our own Civilians maybe with ties or have information on terrorist activities against our People and government. But Hey they Got the Patriot Act signed in, why dont they just go public and let people know if you are doing this we will find out and have the technology and Manpower to observe and read into activities that are Terrorist like or Tied to Terrorist activities..
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 12/14/2008 7:15:24 PM
This is the point. Al Qaida also relied on american laws and did not know about this secret wiretapping activity, After it was published - they simply stopped talking too much by phone, and our goverment lost very importans source of information.
-
Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/15/2008 12:27:34 PM
So you are under the impression that Al Qaeda was dumb enough to speak plainly on an unsecured line?
-
-
-
Posted By: Old Democrat @ 12/14/2008 5:58:23 PM
"All he knew was that a domestic surveillance program existed, and it "didn't smell right." That's all it took to release secret information? How many died because of his ideology-filled nose. Tamm deserves harsher punishment than "living under a pall."
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 12/14/2008 6:07:04 PM
No if you found out that administrations is performing secret semsitive operation which you feel is illegal - make it public, screw your oath and legal procedures.
-
Posted By: ocodan @ 12/14/2008 6:15:39 PM
Yeah, screw your oath to uphold the Constitution and just participate in illegal activity and go a long to get a long... yeah, that's what I want in a government employee.
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 12/14/2008 6:30:11 PM
He had several legal options (for example, apply to some Congressmen with proper clearence) which might cost him his job but keep this a secret from enemy and will not make it explicitely legal and useless.
-
Posted By: ocodan @ 12/14/2008 6:50:09 PM
He did! He tried to contact a Congressman on the Intelligence community discreetly.
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 12/14/2008 7:08:16 PM
Only one? Was he eligable? I think he did not reveal information to this Congressman (otherwise the Congressman would akso be under investigation for inaction). If you warn Congressman that your information may be secretive and damaging - he most likely would run away. Simply provide him this information - and he must act. Of course then most likelty your bosses also will find out about your role, much simplier is pretend that you tried to do it right and then inform NYT.
-
Posted By: ocodan @ 12/14/2008 7:47:28 PM
You actually brought up a good point. He obviously couldn't go to anyone in the Bush Administration or the Executive Branch so he had to go to a Congressman. He would know which ones to approach but he would have to do it clandestinely to avoid a) being caught and abused by the administration (which they have repeated shown they will do) and b) to put the onus on Congress to act. Since he tried to contact a Congressman and was rebuffed I think that Congressman should be held accountable. But ultimately, he did what he had to do, he put country and the constitution first. He reported illegal activity (one of many perpetrated by this administration) and for that he is a patriot. And apparently most Americans, almost 80%, agree with me.
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 12/14/2008 8:03:40 PM
They were several ranked Democrats in Congress with proper clearance, who would be glad to start investigation had he got this information. I prefer, he did not reveal information to those Congressmen probably because he was afraid of goverment retribution. I can not blame his for this or say that he was a coward or bad citizen, only he definitely was a hero. But when insteae of being the hero he cowardly and traitorously revealed this so sensitive secret to NYT, (which, even being far left, still hesitated for long time to publish it) - he did not stopped that dubious wiretap practice (as I understand, Congress made it legal after the fact) but endangered thousand of lives.
-
Posted By: ocodan @ 12/14/2008 9:03:17 PM
Ummmm.... your arguments are getting better. I'm with you on the Democrats in Congress... and I'm a Democrat... but see, Democrats are not afraid to admit mistakes or criticize each other whereas, Republicans seems to do the goose step, never question and act like lemmings. I see it as a strength to admit you are wrong and try something differently to solve a problem.
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 12/15/2008 12:42:38 AM
Agreed. Whatever others think of me - I am not far right Republican, I am a liberal Republidcan, like Juliany.
-
Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/15/2008 12:02:16 PM
You are not a liberal, at least not in the classic sense.
-
-
-
Posted By: skrekk @ 12/14/2008 10:50:02 PM
Wrong. Certain members of Congress - specifically the gang of eight - were informed, but the full intelligence committees were illegally not informed.
http://www.commondreams.org/news2008/0709-11.htm
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 12/14/2008 6:25:02 PM
Did not you read in yesterday Newsweek article that Bush authorized to do only what was signed by Justice Department? Wiretapping was signed, but when Ashcroft and his advisers (all conservetive Republicans, by the way) refused to sign a broader "phishing expedion" - Bush backed up. Even from legal point of view, he did not violate his oath.
-
Posted By: ocodan @ 12/14/2008 9:05:07 PM
Hey... just read it.... riveting. Even if Ashcroft signed off he can't sign off on a policy that would violate the law. And then Bush tried to get it through all by himself.
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 12/15/2008 12:47:11 AM
No, Bush finally backed up, but the wiretapping was not what they disagreed.
-
-
Posted By: ocodan @ 12/14/2008 6:34:32 PM
I was talking about Tamm. But I'll take on this on. Your argument is circular. The Justice Department is under the Executive Branch. So saying that everything was signed and Constitutional is false. Sort of like saying the CIA, which was gutted and politicized by the Bush Administration and then forced to come up with phony WMD evidence by arm twisting Dick Cheney means there was perfectly good evidence to support WMD existence in Iraq and thus the preemptive invasion.
The law specifically states that wiretapping be reviewed and approved by the FISA court. Thus making Bush's directive to not go through the FISA court illegal.-
Posted By: bighappy @ 12/14/2008 6:50:34 PM
I said it was signed by Judicial Department, because in their opinion it was constitutional. As you can see from that article- they did not simply obey Bush, if they felt it was illegal - they refused to sign, and Bush backed up.
-
Posted By: ocodan @ 12/14/2008 7:34:50 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong but the Executive branch cannot right it's own laws to follow that directly go against the laws passed and signed into law by Congress and a previous administration. Oh wait, maybe the Justice Department is not part of the Executive Branch but a 4th branch of government that we were never taught about. Just like Cheney claims not to be part of the Administration.
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 12/14/2008 8:47:09 PM
Mute point. Justice Department has experienced lawyers who are obligated to treat laws to the best of their judgement. They do not consult with Supreme court judges (probably even do not have right to do it). Probably Judicial Commetee also has some control, I don't know, but I remember read somewhere (I am not 100% sure) that they have access to all those documents signed by Justice Department.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: al75 @ 12/14/2008 8:14:17 PM
Democracy depends, ultimately, on the convictions and integrity of "little people", i.e. staff sargeants, assistant attorneys, and the millions of the rest of us, who will -- or won't -- "follow orders" they believe to be morally corrupt. The nazis and stalinists used terror and mass murder to silence dissenters -- and their regimes ultimately disintegrated as a result. Tamm did what Specialist Joseph Danby (the man who exposed Abu Graib), James Comey, and Daniel Ellsberg did: at great personal risk, he took steps to expose something he knew to be illegal and wrong. This is courage. It's a defense of our laws and constitution. This isn't about "red or blue" - it's about "red white and blue" ie what our country actually stands for. Without people like Tamm, we're in alot of trouble.
-
Posted By: thinkotsdbox @ 12/14/2008 8:31:18 PM
Actually " Democracy depends, ultimately, on the convictions and integrity of " ALL THE PEOPLE. REMEMBER HITLER WAS elected...,
-
Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/15/2008 12:01:16 PM
Hitler was appointed by Hindenburg.
-
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 12/14/2008 9:14:27 PM
What courage? He was sure nobody would find out that it was him. He was caught because he was a moron.
-
-
Posted By: SteveofIndiana @ 12/14/2008 6:53:22 PM
The Man Really Stepped out there and Put something in the light, which if was being done and still is , would violate Our constitution on the Highest levels, And We know the Bush Admin. Gladly uses the Patriot Act already for Similiar Activities, I Feel bad for the Man cause he gave so many of his years to the Government and When he Steps out there against Wrong doing, he is targeted and No one is Stepping up with him.......and this story seems to not be on 60 minutes as it should be Probably Because the Gov. has stepped in to keep it more hush hush...
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 12/14/2008 7:23:22 PM
Revealed arguable violation of constitution and endnger my life?! I don;t need favors from this jerk. 70% americans thought the same way when it was revealed.
-
Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/15/2008 11:56:49 AM
That just goes to show that 30% of your nation still has guts.
-
-
-
Posted By: John Maxwell @ 12/14/2008 7:33:11 PM
This is a sad day for America. The FBI and DOJ have conducted such opoerations unbeknownst to the American public for years under the guise of SRD, Experimental Projects and Artificial Intelligence Projects. The fact they have so relentlessly pursued this patriot who stood on the constitution,is a testament to patterns of behavior they have exhibited for decades. When a deputy director will admit to an agency lying for decades on national tv, I would think they would be curbed in the very least or disbanded in a more harsh scenario. The question that I would have is what did they do with information that did not apply to Al Quaeda. It simply provided them a loophole to circumvent the law against any American citizen as THEY saw fit. Very sad.
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 12/14/2008 7:46:52 PM
I seems you now are critisizing Patriote Act supported by great majority of Democrats, even far left. Nobody likes it, Republican even more (it is Democrats priority to let goverment control almost everything), but we have live with it until terrorism exists, or ... not live at all.
-
Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/15/2008 11:55:30 AM
Why do you have to live with it? Your country has survived far more dangerous times than these, without trashing your amendment IV.
-
Posted By: sesela @ 12/14/2008 9:43:50 PM
you are brainwashed...it is sad.
-
-
Report Abuse
Enter comments if any for reporting abuse
- Twenty five years feels right in my bones and right in my spirit. Oprah on ending her showCST
- It’s going to be a holy war Orrin Hatch on debate over the Senate health billNYT
- The nation and the world will see him for the coward he is Holder, on trying KSMAP
- I'm not scared of what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will have to say. Holder on terror trialsREUT
- The out-of-context Newsweek approach is sexist. Sarah Palin on the magazine coverCSM
Discuss