The Fed Who Blew the Whistle

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/16/2008 1:45:19 PM

    ""Whoever, therefore, insinuates notions of government contrary to the constitution, or in any degree winks at any measures to suppress or even to weaken it, is not a loyal man."
    - Samuel Adams,
    Hippie Left Wing Traitor

  • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/16/2008 1:42:51 PM

    ""Whoever, therefore, insinuates notions of government contrary to the constitution, or in any degree winks at any measures to suppress or even to weaken it, is not a loyal man."
    - Samuel Adams,
    Hippie Left Wing Traitor

  • Posted By: jsnow1492 @ 12/16/2008 1:03:45 PM

    Michael Isikoff is a traitor and should be tried and convicted for aiding and abetting the Bush Administration in the performance of its illegal acts - especially disseminating false intelligence about the bogus Iraqi nuclear threats to the United States.

    • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/16/2008 1:09:52 PM

      Then you may as well dump your first amendment entirely, if you plan to prosecute the press for what they write.

  • Posted By: jsteinauer @ 12/14/2008 9:37:25 PM

    It seems to me that protecting the constitution is the higher calling. Expecting someone to use official procedures to report unconstitutional acts is crazy rhetoric as it informs the very same chain of command that made the decisions to set aside the laws and protections of the constitution. A person who believes in the constitution looses faith in leadership to whom rights are merely inconveniences. When a person makes the decision to report this sort of abuse of power, they act in complete selflessness; they have everything to lose in doing what their oath requires, and only their integrity to retain. The laws were written to protect our national secrets, not criminal decisions made in secret and kept so in a self-justifying plurality. The substance is quite different, to be sure, between valid national secrets and the secrets of those hiding their own abuses of power. Sleep well Mr. Tamm, you deserve it. Keep the faith, sir.

    • Posted By: bighappy @ 12/14/2008 10:48:02 PM

      It ha a name- Democracy, where 2 other branches of goverment protect people from unconstitutional acts of the third one. There are always legal means to notify other branches about possible power abuse. In autoritarian countries they often have to use free press.

      • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/15/2008 12:55:19 PM

        Which authoritarian countries have a free press?

        • Posted By: bighappy @ 12/15/2008 8:24:32 PM

          Foreign free press, dummy.

          • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/16/2008 12:27:56 PM

            Name one authoritarian nation with a free press.

            Just one.

  • Posted By: dnendza @ 12/16/2008 12:24:21 PM

    There are several threads of classical thought running through this discussion. One seems to believe blindly in the rule of law and strict loyalty oath adherence. The other allows for exceptional acts when the question of governmental misconduct is serious enough to warrant public disclosure. Looking back at historical events, I can't help but feel that people of good conscience, with nothing to gain personally, should be able to aim for a higher good in choosing to disclose what they believe is a subversion of constitutional rights. Sure, there is a lot of gray area and so-called experts differ on this question. So many of those experts come with political baggage and are paid to come up with their views. This is not an area for experts. It is an area for the common man who has at least a passing knowledge of the history of our country and the development of the constitutional rights we hold to be inviolate.

    Mr. Tamm had absolutely nothing to gain and everything to lose. He had been in the inner sanctum long enough to see what happens to those who step outside. He made a decision that was tough and personally damaging and he knew it. I would say that I hope I could have such courage to risk so much to support what a simple reading of the Constitution makes clear. Loyalty to a bunch of would-be dictators be damned. And our sad example of a commander-in-chief aside, such a disclosure under any administration should be made. People of conscience are always one of the bulwarks of freedom our country has depended upon for many years.

    ???In matters of conscience, the law of the majority has no place.??? ??? Mahatma Gandhi

  • Posted By: floridacadman @ 12/15/2008 10:11:39 AM

    In the tradition of Woodward and Berstein, good job Tamm. Gov't doesnt get to do whatever the hell it is they feel like, and whoever thinks they should, is living in the wrong country and is totally anti-American.
    For those of you traitors that think he did the wrong thing, Russia is back open for business, pack a bag and take a perminant trip.

    • Posted By: RichinNH @ 12/15/2008 11:24:39 AM

      Much has certainly changed for the Intelligence Community and DoD regarding oversight since the days Woodward & Berstein - almost 40 yrs ago. We couldn???t disagree more about Mr. Tamm???s status (Hero/Villain), but as more information becomes available about his true motives and actions, perhaps we will find some things upon which we can agree. In the meantime, however please be careful, about confusing those of us who are proud traitors to your brand of thinking as somehow being traitors to this proud land - as some of us have dedicated a considerable portion of our lives shouldering a flag and M16 to support the right of people both here and afar to have and be able to express their different views and opinions. It is only the facts where we should agree.

      • Posted By: floridacadman @ 12/15/2008 11:47:48 AM

        The gun you hold doesnt make you a patriot. The foundation of the country and the principles it was founded on are the litmus test.
        If you believe the gov't should be able to do whatever it likes, thats fine, but you are not an American.

        • Posted By: RichinNH @ 12/15/2008 12:58:56 PM

          Never said it did, but I suppose your first sentence was designed to play more as a song then represent my professionalism or that of our military, who have been asked to take up arms. There is a reason we have not had a coup in the US and it because us military types don???t measure our patriotism by the gun. On the contrary and make no mistake, it is not our principles or philosophies on freedom and the rule of law that enable you to enjoy your God-given rights and civil liberties, but real people who believe preserving those rights is worth dying for and yes, even your right to call me un-American - twice. But somehow you???ve answered your own question, but attributed your answer to me: that I believe in a government that does what it likes, etc. I do not but rather support these things called laws, which reflect the will of the people and if you choose to break them whether as President or an intelligence analyst, then you should suffer the consequence consistently and to the fullest extent. I hope this helps clarify my position so you won???t feel the need to define it for me. I guess this free speech thing works both ways ??? I protect yours and you let mine actually be mine. Thanks.

          • Posted By: summer4077 @ 12/15/2008 2:18:24 PM

            There's a difference between protection and blatant abuse of power. I commend and respect those that have served in the military--people like you, my father, my brother. Bush and his cronies abused their power. End of story.

            • Posted By: RichinNH @ 12/15/2008 2:57:20 PM

              Summer you haven't a clue, but please don't let that stop you. It is far easier to sit and judge the quality of intelligence based on actual outcomes, but more challenging to do so when assessing action in the fight. The truth is that it takes courage and leadership to take action when the information is not 100% available or 100% clear. To attribute an evil intent such as lying etc is a complete fabrication of those muted in the wake of 9/11 and who do not want to admit that while we may have over-reached, it was straightforward decision-making all the way from strategic to tactical. Am not pro-Bush, just pro-American who has run out of patience from people who have zero experience and yet all the answers.

              • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/16/2008 12:12:12 PM

                So, when there's a crisis, you can just toss the rule of law and your constitution out the window?

                Why even bother with them, then?

              • Posted By: ouroborous @ 12/15/2008 4:17:36 PM

                Bush and Cheney broke the law (the Constitution), numerous times. They had to *retroactively amend* the law (the FISA debacle this summer) to even grant a veneer of legality to some of this, and some of it (the suspension of habeas for our prisoners, torture in our name) still doesn't even pass the faintest sniff-test of Constitutionality.

                Why are they exempt from the highest law of the land, and Mann should be thrown in the slammer?

                Methinks serving has made you... a servant. Americans were not meant to be servants of government.

                • Posted By: ouroborous @ 12/15/2008 5:34:30 PM

                  Tamm, not Mann. Broken brain, today.

          • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/15/2008 1:24:27 PM

            Yet you do not believe that the NSA should be held accountable for violating the FISA laws, yes?

            • Posted By: RichinNH @ 12/15/2008 2:26:07 PM

              HB, just what laws exactly are you referring to that NSA and/or the Justice department has violated? You keep throwing around terms like FISA, etc. but it is time for you to produce some substance to back up these claims the flow so easily from your lips that others might take as fact. Please enlighten me.

              • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/15/2008 2:55:37 PM

                "HB, just what laws exactly are you referring to that NSA and/or the Justice department has violated? "

                Did you even read the article? What Tamm blew the whistle on was the NSA concealing wiretaps involving American citizens from the FISA court, thus violating the Protect America Act.

                But I am sure that is excusable in your eyes. After all, amendment IV of the US Constitution is just a guideline for peacetime, right?

                • Posted By: ouroborous @ 12/15/2008 4:18:39 PM

                  Remember, the Constitution is "just a goddamned piece of paper."

                  I mourn the loss of America. Our spirit of liberty and democracy is pretty much dead, buried under an avalanche of "government knows best."

                  • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/15/2008 4:53:18 PM

                    So do something about it. Your forefathers chased us out when we misruled in what used to be the colonies.

                    You can do it again, should things go that far.

      • Posted By: ouroborous @ 12/15/2008 4:14:33 PM

        Amen.

        • Posted By: ouroborous @ 12/15/2008 5:49:55 PM

          *grumble* the "Amen" was to the post below me, not to RichinNH, with whom I disagree in almost every way.

          I really don't care much for this Newsweek forum format.

  • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/15/2008 11:51:45 AM

    Yanks, if you don't want Tamm, send him over here. We can use more people with guts, because we are now where you are headed...a police state. Send us Tamm, and those who support him. The rest of you "patriotic Americans" can enjoy devolving into a police state that promises to keep you safe. The fact that they weren't working on keeping you safe with respect to what Tamm spoke out about should not deter you. Send us all that disagree with the idea that national security trumps civil liberties.

    Your loss will be our gain.

    • Posted By: ouroborous @ 12/15/2008 4:14:09 PM

      Not all of us Americans are evil, servile, "government knows best" drones.

      Not all of us believe all the lies we're fed.

      This American believes that Tamm is a patriot and a hero of the truest sort. He may have broken a law, but he was trying to defend the Constitution, which is supposedly the "supreme law of the land," so in my opinion, he should be not just immunized but given a medal.

      It won't happen, but it should happen.

      All of the the "he broke the LAW so he should go to jail" people really need to re-read their history books on the ideals behind the American Revolution and re-think what it means to be an American. Being an American doesn't mean waving your flag while drinking your beer and driving your pickup truck. It's *supposed* to mean liberty, equality, and opposition to tyranny.

      • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/15/2008 4:18:01 PM

        "Not all of us Americans are evil, servile, "government knows best" drones."

        Well, consider yourself welcome here any time you might wish to move...not that I'd actually expect you to let the drones chase you out of your home.

        • Posted By: ouroborous @ 12/15/2008 5:48:35 PM

          I don't own a gun and have never done a violent act in my life, but I've had a few near-misses; what Glenn Greenwald (over all an EXCELLENT writer on this rule of law stuff) called "pitchfork moments."

          And my sister lives in London, so if things really hit the fan here, I know at least one place to wait out the storm.

          • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/16/2008 12:10:54 PM

            Well, we can definitely use more like you. This place is what America is becoming, in some ways.

  • Posted By: Jepysdad @ 12/15/2008 1:19:20 PM

    Frances Townsend has zero tolerance for whistleblowers going to the media. I find incompetent investigations dieturbing. Fran's Hurricene Katrina Lessons learned report omitted any mention of the hospital with the largest death toll. The for-profit hospital has ties to the Bush clan. Are any whistleblowers under the thumb of our federal bureacracy in this regard? Without the media, we might never know.

    • Posted By: RichinNH @ 12/15/2008 1:54:01 PM

      More apparent is that without the media, we wouldn???t have all these stories, which have yet to be corroborated against any fact. Boy, that George Bush is a busy guy ??? with his family ties to oil, timber and now hospitals makes it hard for a guy to pick the next country to attack ??? any chance his family behind the challenges facing our three auto companies - perhaps he told them to once again defy logic ??? seems like that is his MO ??? and had them sell gas guzzling cars that no one wants all to drive his oil incomes higher?! I am all for getting to the bottom of things and having the truth come forward, but please this is getting rediculous.

      • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/15/2008 2:25:18 PM

        "More apparent is that without the media, we wouldn???t have all these stories"

        Yes, damn that free press.

        • Posted By: tkunze1000 @ 12/15/2008 4:49:52 PM

          No, damn the far left leaning main stream media.

          • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/16/2008 12:08:53 PM

            So, only the right leaning media should have freedom of the press?

          • Posted By: ouroborous @ 12/15/2008 5:41:39 PM

            Ah whew, I knew that the "great liberal conspiracy" had to come into play before too long. Don't pay any attention to the fact that the Accountability Now/Strange Bedfellows PAC, leading critics of Bush-era lawlessness, is a coalition of progressive (yes, liberal) and *CONSERVATIVE* groups. In other words, ignore the fact that a good number of Republicans are as aghast and pissed off as progressives like me are.

            Just keep believing that this is all a great liberal conspiracy. Whatever helps you sleep at night...

  • Posted By: soggy @ 12/15/2008 3:40:35 PM

    I am perplexed by this whole eavesdropping nonesense. First, the supreme court has routinely held that ones right to privacy is directly contengent upon the "reasonable expectation of privacy". The idea that a phone conversation is private is a throwback to the pre-digital age. In the modern era phone calls are bounced around the atmosphere from satilites to towers to antnenas and are picked up by handheld walkie-talkies, police scanners, other cordless and cellular phones and even some car radios. The bottm line is that there is not a reasonable expectation of privacy any longer with a phone call. Therefore any government action to intcept this communication cannot, by definiton, be unlawful. The law is always slow to catch up with technology but it will and the fuss over this will seem strange.

    • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/15/2008 3:56:39 PM

      "I am perplexed by this whole eavesdropping nonesense. First, the supreme court has routinely held that ones right to privacy is directly contengent upon the "reasonable expectation of privacy". The idea that a phone conversation is private is a throwback to the pre-digital age."

      Not according to your court system.

      • Posted By: PaBR @ 12/15/2008 5:54:27 PM

        The US Supreme Court has already opinioned that emails are public property.

      • Posted By: PaBR @ 12/15/2008 5:53:44 PM

        The US Supreme Court has already opinioned that emails are public property.

  • Posted By: pmcs @ 12/16/2008 11:45:38 AM

    Bush's DARK AGE

    Bush's DARK AGE -- War, Destruction, Killing, Suffering of humanity, Destruction of Environment and Earth, Suppression of Liberty and Freedom, Suppression of Science, Promotion of Religious Fundamentalism, Promotion of Religious Fanatics, Promotion of Dogmas and Ideologues, .... Bush's Eight Years will be recorded as the new DARK AGE in history books, with the following Obama regime as leading the new Renaissance.

  • Posted By: bj129new @ 12/16/2008 11:40:16 AM

    I am no Georgetowner, but as a citizen I wholeheartedly agree that Mr. Tamm is a true hero and we need more like him. By the way I wonder how many Tamms Harvardites or Yalies could hold up in the same light at this time of national crisis.

  • Posted By: cbastle1 @ 12/15/2008 3:42:26 PM

    I have just scanned through all of the posts thus far, and I wish to make these observations:

    1) Thomas Tamm upheld his oath to defend the U.S. Constitution (which by the way, in the military version, reads "against all enemies foreign and domestic)" He is a hero and should be treated as such by all Americans.

    2) It is obvious that American education needs to re-institute old-fashioned civics classics, in which young people are taught that the U.S. Constitution is the highest law of the land and should be preserved, protected and defended by all, presidents and their minions included. Right-wing propaganda, especially since 9/11, has so poisoned Americans' minds with fear that we no longer remember who we are or why our country was founded.

    3) For those who wish to contribute to Tamm's defense fund, here's the address:
    Thomas Tamm Legal Defense Fund
    Bank of Georgetown
    5236 44th Street
    Washington, DC 20015.

    Thank you, Thomas Tamm, Newsweek and the New York Times. You have all done great service to the real America.

    • Posted By: ouroborous @ 12/15/2008 5:10:51 PM

      I just sent him a check for 100 dollars. All I could afford, and it'll probably get me on some kind of subversive watch list, but if we don't put our money where our mouths are, American democracy is dead. Citizens own government, not the other way around, and if we refuse to stand up for our rights, we have no rights.

      • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/16/2008 11:01:46 AM

        "and it'll probably get me on some kind of subversive watch list,"

        That's a badge of honor, mate. Kind of like being on Nixon's "enemies list".

  • Posted By: pacalo @ 12/15/2008 4:46:30 PM

    Putting aside Mr. Tamm's angst, which is justified, in regard to his predicament, I'm very much interested in knowing what his opinion is in regard to impeachment.

    If Congress allowed this president to override the Constitution -- not only in regard to FISA, but many other areas as well -- does he fear that the proverbial welcome mat has been laid down for future presidencies? In Mr. Tramm's opinion, why has this president escaped accountability for what -- I think -- are high crimes & misdemeanors?

    Will we ever get out of this Twilight Zone?

    • Posted By: PaBR @ 12/15/2008 6:47:55 PM

      The most obvious answer is that Bush did not violate the Constitution.

      • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/16/2008 10:47:09 AM

        Well, except for amendment IV. For starters.

        • Posted By: Shanshayla @ 12/16/2008 10:53:29 AM

          Really? You will let us know when he's been indicted, let alone impeached for it, okay?

          • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/16/2008 11:00:40 AM

            With that wimp congress of yours? Not likely.

            You Americans will put up with anything.

    • Posted By: ouroborous @ 12/15/2008 5:02:39 PM

      The government has escaped accountability because the public -- ill-educated, docile sheep that we are, taught to Love and Trust the government (even though its actions have been far from trustworthy) -- simply doesn't care.

      Aside from a small group of vocal, high-information types (who the government, hand-in-hand with an influence-seeking media, are happy to write off as "progressive whackos," despite quite a few of them being registered Republicans), most people don't even know what their rights are, don't know that the President (and all other civil servants) affirm an oath to the Constitution, know that the Constitution is the "supreme law of the land," or have the faintest idea what's IN the Constitution. For the most part, we don't know, and we don't care.

      It's so sad. The land of Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson (my namesakes!) has become the land of George Bush and Alberto Gonzales.

      • Posted By: soggy @ 12/15/2008 5:38:26 PM

        It would seem to follow then that the same ill informed sheepish public is also the same group that just elected the next presidnet. mmmm it would seem that we find a way to make a poor choice every four years...maybe you are on to something.

  • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/16/2008 10:58:25 AM

    What's really funny about this?

    We have gone downt the same path you Yanks are so desperate to follow. The result? CCTV cameras every few metres, firearms are outlawed, there is absolutely no expectation of privacy...and we still aren't safe. They have taken away our means to resist, with our full compliance, and delivered nothing in return.

    That's what's about to happen to you. Hell, you're BEGGING for it. And, of course, when it happens, you'll just blame "the other side", when any fool can see that both parties are gaming you. There is nothing an American won't put up with, if "his side" puts it on the table.

    Welcome to hell, Yanks. It just gets worse from here.

  • Posted By: bdcoombe@aol.com @ 12/14/2008 11:43:25 AM

    How sad that Bush was ever elected!! This man has disgraced our country, his family, and all the families that his policies touched including Iraq and Afghanistan. I can't even call him President Bush.....Bush should be put on trial for his crimes against the constitution of the United States of America. He is the worst President in the history of our country!!

    • Posted By: Pallisor @ 12/14/2008 11:47:38 AM

      Thank you for your opinion. Fortunately, that's all it is.

      • Posted By: ocodan @ 12/14/2008 9:54:14 PM

        Yes, and it is the opinion of almost 80% of Americans. And, Bush should be tried for War Crimes in the Hague.

        • Posted By: Shanshayla @ 12/16/2008 10:56:10 AM

          All this finger pointing at Bush, yet he's never been indicted or impeached for any of his purported "crimes." hmmmm...

  • Posted By: John Morrissey @ 12/15/2008 5:23:38 PM

    let me remind you once again.In WW2 we had hundres of Soviet agents turning over secret classified informtion to the Soviets,When caught the excuse was they were serving a higher duty.Their actions condemned much of Eastern Europe, and the Balkans to slavery ,allowed the USSR to create the Republic of North Korea and
    gave the Soviets the A bomb and H bomb a decade ahead of where they would have been,and was a key behind Stalins decision to have N Korea invade the South in 1951.
    .No one has the right to decide he can reveal secrets he has sworn to protect.If Tamm was really driven by conscience then resign and go elsewhere.Can a guard at the airport allow passengers to board without checking their luggage because he believes check ins are unconstitutional?I have before me the Constitution.Will the persons citing the Constitution kindly cite the section that says the President does not have the authority to data mine wireless messages looking for clues to terrorist activities.Keep in mind that the program at no time looked at the text of the messages,but simply at
    the duration,sources,and frequencies of certain combinations believed to be characteristic of potential terror attacks.
    Tamm has already revealed a source of his unhappiness.He disagrees with US policies on capital punishment and on aggresive interrogation.He was getting even for a wide range of political differences he had with the administration.Under a nation of laws his appropriate action was to resign and run for office.If you can get a majority to agee with you , you have a good chance of getting your way.Leaking to newspapers is cowardly,lazy, and illegal.Fr those of you who disagree , tell me what country and whose laws permit disgruntled government employees to leak information they have sworn to keep secret.

    • Posted By: ouroborous @ 12/15/2008 5:33:10 PM

      Nobody has the right to decide to not obey the Constitution, either. When a government official uncovers unconstitutional government behavior, and it's clear that Tamm thought he did, it is not just his right, but his oathbound *DUTY* to try to stop that behavior.

      The fact that some spies used the same argument when caught is irrelevant; people who beat their children and are arrested often claim that it's "for their own good." This is bogus, but does that mean that anyone who ever does something for their child's good should be arrested?

      Your argument is very, very leaky. Yes, some scoundrels used the same excuse, but that doesn't mean that anyone who claims to be acting in the interests of the Constitution is a scoundrel. Down that road lies madness.

      • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/16/2008 10:46:37 AM

        "Nobody has the right to decide to not obey the Constitution, either. When a government official uncovers unconstitutional government behavior, and it's clear that Tamm thought he did, it is not just his right, but his oathbound *DUTY* to try to stop that behavior."

        It appears that many of your countrymen are too afraid and too weak to respect your constitution.

    • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/16/2008 10:45:37 AM

      "No one has the right to decide he can reveal secrets he has sworn to protect."

      Tamm didn't swear to keep crimes a secret.

  • Posted By: Gloria S @ 12/16/2008 9:48:58 AM

    I said, Arrest, Prosecute and Punish thew traiter by putting him in jail for life! He is a traitor.

    • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/16/2008 10:42:35 AM

      So you approve of lawbreaking and out of control government. Interesting.

  • Posted By: drserg @ 12/14/2008 1:28:12 PM

    When I read some of the posts on this topic, I understand why GWB was reelected despite beginning a war by lying to the American people, intruding on our privacy, and allowing torture, which is against the law in our country, and according to US law should be punishable even if it takes place in another country. Mr. Tamm is a true American hero, but like many heroes before him, he gets prosecuted by those in power who are afraid to lose that power. Shame on the Bush administration for allowing this lawlessness to happen. Shame on congress and the judicial department for allowing Bush to destroy the balance if power in the US government.

    • Posted By: bighappy @ 12/14/2008 1:40:32 PM

      It is sad times when betraying his country is considered to be a hero. I am afraid Al-Qaida-Democrats tandem will make you wiser in near future.

      • Posted By: drserg @ 12/14/2008 2:06:39 PM

        The only traitors are the Bush Cheney administration, history will be their ultimate judge, and no I don't support Al Queda, and neither do the Democrats. But as long as there are persons with your attitude, Al Queda will be winning this war, because they want to create fear and change our way of living.

        • Posted By: Forty4 @ 12/14/2008 2:12:57 PM

          Quote: "They want to create fear and change our way of living."

          I suppose you don't think they accomplished that on 9/11. Behaving like they aren't there and not fighting them with everything we have will only make them stronger. Why do think we haven't been attacked since then?

          • Posted By: drserg @ 12/14/2008 2:21:16 PM

            We should fight them, and have been doing so. But we should not compromise the constitution!!!!!!!

            • Posted By: Shanshayla @ 12/14/2008 4:38:21 PM

              You're right, we shouldn't. But I've done things I shouldn't before. And if it will save our lives and I'm forced to, I would do so again.

              You can blame Jamie Gorelick as a reason for avoiding legal channels. She stood in the way of obtaining vital information from terrorists regarding 9/11. This is why the government goes around imbeciles like this. Btw, the gal that walked with 20 mil from Fan/Fred? One in the same.

              http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/apr/15/20040415-094758-5267r/

              • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/15/2008 3:49:51 PM

                "You're right, we shouldn't. But I've done things I shouldn't before. And if it will save our lives and I'm forced to, I would do so again."

                So you don't think much of your constitution?

                "You can blame Jamie Gorelick as a reason for avoiding legal channels."

                Actually, I can blame the criminals that avoided them.

                • Posted By: Shanshayla @ 12/16/2008 9:55:13 AM

                  I think very much of our constitution. Let us all know when Bush has been impeached for breaking constitutional law.

                  And the terrorists love people like you and Gorelick. They know you're here (if you live here in America) to protect them and make sure the rights they don't have are more than protected.

          • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/15/2008 3:48:48 PM

            "I suppose you don't think they accomplished that on 9/11."

            Judging from the fearmongering crap I see coming from the right, they did a proper job of it.

        • Posted By: bighappy @ 12/14/2008 2:16:59 PM

          I said and repeat again, there are legal channels to handle this situation for carreer FBI prosecutor, which could stop wiretapping, if it was illegal, without revealing it to the whole world. May be it would cost him a job, but remember, he is a hero. Being democratic does not mean being foolish and opened to your enemy, those democrats were exterminated (literally) long ago.

      • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/15/2008 3:50:37 PM

        "Al-Qaida-Democrats"

        This is why nobody takes you seriously.

      • Posted By: Toofoocactus @ 12/14/2008 2:02:40 PM

        "Al Qaeda Democrats"? This is the kind of abusive and divisive attacks on anybody who disagreed with them that made the Republican party the powerless losers they are today. Americans are tired of politicians trying to hide their failures by accusing their opponents of supporting Al Qaeda. Keep it up and your party will lose even more seats in the next election.

        • Posted By: bighappy @ 12/14/2008 2:31:50 PM

          For several years Democrats were powereless loosers, and will be again in 4 years. So, don't try to invent insults which may be easily aoolicable to you.. As about why REpublaicans lost - it is not because of Natianal security (remember, Bush rating grew when he admitted his direct responsibility for wiretapping), it was because of economical reasons and stupid Bush conviction that itis possible to establish democracy in arab country.

      • Posted By: Toofoocactus @ 12/14/2008 1:59:27 PM

        You're admitting you've lost the argument when you claim that the people who disagrees with you support Al Qaeda. Give yourself a time-out and take a nap before you get kicked off this forum for your abusive attacks.

        • Posted By: bighappy @ 12/14/2008 2:11:31 PM

          I do not claim that Democrats support Al Qaida, I believe they hate those guys more than Bush. But their recless actions inside will help Al Qaida to regroup and fulfill Bin Laden promises about next big bang in USA. Like Baracx/Peres almost destroied Israel.

  • Posted By: Ronnie_Gardocki @ 12/15/2008 7:20:58 PM

    I can't believe there are still people defending Bush's illegal wiretaps. This is how we lose our rights, by just standing by and letting the government take them. Do you people want to live in a police state? It sure looks like it.

    • Posted By: bighappy @ 12/15/2008 9:27:53 PM

      70%, and now it is explicitely legal. Unbelievable.

      • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/16/2008 9:26:18 AM

        Not legal. Have you even looked at the PAA?

  • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/16/2008 9:22:48 AM

    Wow. Can someone tell me when American conservatives became fans of intrusive government?

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse