The Fed Who Blew the Whistle

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: graywolf @ 12/15/2008 11:27:21 PM

    This motherfuc*er is a traitor pure and simple.
    Who gave this self-sanctimonious scumbag the "higher power" to disclose national secrets?
    Like many in the permanent government, he thinks he IS the government.
    This bunch of pencilneck losersforget; they work for us.
    If there is another 9/11 the blood is on his hands, and the America-hating media.

    • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/16/2008 9:21:03 AM

      "Who gave this self-sanctimonious scumbag the "higher power" to disclose national secrets?"

      He didn't. He disclosed a crime.

  • Posted By: UseCommonSense @ 12/16/2008 12:17:41 AM

    What this story missed(Purposely I believe) is that while the Supreme Court in 67 and 72 addressed that domestic surveillance must satisfy the 4th amendment, it specifically did not address international intercepts. In fact, in 1972, Justice Powell specifically pointed out that the courts decision did not address the issue that "May be involved with respect to activities of foreign powers or their agents".

    In fact, there are other lower court cases since the 72 supreme court decision that upheld the warrant less wiretaps.

    There are serious constitutional lawyers who agree that the Bush administration did nothing wrong. It is possible that well meaning people can disagree on the subject, but don't lose sight on what the purpose was. It was to get intelligence on foreign nationals who wish to do harm to the United States. It wasn't a Nixonion power play to get information on his political enemies. It wasn't Hoover compiling files on innocent Americans (It's curious that Newsweek liked to bring up Hoover and Tamm's connections but didn't bring up Hoover's excesses). It was a reasonable decision made in a critical time that was intended to help secure the US.

    • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/16/2008 9:20:26 AM

      "What this story missed(Purposely I believe) is that while the Supreme Court in 67 and 72 addressed that domestic surveillance must satisfy the 4th amendment, it specifically did not address international intercepts. "

      He wasn't complaining about international intercepts. Did you even read the article?

  • Posted By: Mike_Dugas @ 12/16/2008 8:35:49 AM

    Hero? I'm sorry you can try to rewrite history all you want but the man is a traitor and should be in jail. Regardless of your feelings about Bush, Tamm released classified information. No matter who the president is that is a crime. If one of Obama's aides leaks some of his classified info watch how fast he's tossed to the wolves. You all are trying to make a hero out of him based only on your dislike of Bush and not the crime committed. Grow up for a second and face reality.

  • Posted By: DonnaH @ 12/16/2008 7:30:33 AM

    The damage that George W. Bush has done to this country is immeasurable and will be the subject of countless doctoral theses for decades. How arrogant to violate the oath to "uphold the constitution of the United States" in such blatant fashion. In my view, Tamm is a hero and Bush will go down in history as the worse president in the history of the US.

  • Posted By: UTFB @ 12/16/2008 6:41:17 AM

    It seems there is one person here who would not have blown the whistle on Richard Nixon's use of the IRS to attack his presumed emenies in hollywood. Yes and also that one person here does not have concern for those in elected office that fill they are above the written law of our land: Having sat across from Vladimir Putin and while gazing into his eyes he found a soulmate, it is evident by the directions that W. has tried to lead us that A-hole was serious. He does not trust the federal judges of the United States of America.... There is and was something really wrong.

  • Posted By: FATJOEY @ 12/16/2008 6:34:22 AM

    YOU HIRE A "LAWYER",THEN DON'T EXPECT THEM TO BE A RAT?!? DUH UH?

  • Posted By: FATJOEY @ 12/16/2008 6:31:32 AM

    IS HE SAYING HE COULDN'T GO "FUTHER UP THE CHAIN OF COMMAND" WITH HIS FEELINGS? NO,HE DECIDED TO DO THINGS THE WAY IT WILL "PAY OFF",READY FOR HIS BOOK ANYONE?!!!

  • Posted By: FATJOEY @ 12/16/2008 6:29:45 AM

    TREASON IS GETTING OUT OF HAND! EXECUTE THE MAN!

  • Posted By: DG366 @ 12/16/2008 5:01:07 AM

    The SS only obeyed orders too, but military law was changed in 1944 so that was no defence. Thankully some understand the higher ideals espoused by 'Fidelity, Bravery, Integrity' and fought against the covert creation of a police state by a cavalier president whilst too many careerists didn't want to know. Terrorists kill people. Have conservatives only just woken up to this? They were quite happy to train Afghans when the Soviets invaded: my enemy's enemy is my friend - until two decades later he bites your hand. Other Americans were quite happy to fund the IRA for years against the Brits. One of their bombs killed several military bandsmen not 12 miles from where I live, and another narrowly missed my wife to be. Fortunately for us they lacked the imagination and will to think big like Al Qaeda. 2000+ people died in the twin towers - but how many die each year in car crashes, through hospital errors, smoking or alcohol? Is there a war on them? Some people have no sense of proportion, and are quite happy to give up freedoms hard won without a fight.

  • Posted By: shwet @ 12/16/2008 4:20:03 AM

    What Tamm did was really a awesomw act. Nobody can gather this much courage to bring homself in danger for the sake of public.He wanted to let the citizens know that wiretrapping is being done without their knowledge. I ownder y people are stabbing him with words like criminal.He should be loojked up yo and followed as an example as the well wisher.

  • Posted By: pablooliva @ 12/16/2008 2:48:12 AM

    It takes more courage to do what Tamm did than most of us have. It's a beautiful thing when people fight for what they believe in... dieing on your feet rather than living on your knees.

  • Posted By: Steve in Fla @ 12/15/2008 10:55:58 PM

    During peacetime he is a criminal. During wartime he is a traitor. Holders of clearances do not have the lattitude to decide whether or not they should expose sensitive information. An individual cannot foresee the potential impact that an ILLEGAL disclosure may have as compartmentalization prevents this. Each secret cannot be "judged" by an individual as to it's merits or need to be undisclosed. Failure to follow the law and the agreements signed when granted either a confidential, secret or top secret clearance are to be treated the same, no matter the outcome of the disclosure. I have spent years with each level but treat the secrecy of projects worked under a confidential clearance (red badge) as seriously as projects worked under top secret (blue badge). Positions of trust cannot be violated without the threat of EXTREME PREJUDICE. NO EXCEPTIONS!

    • Posted By: AnnCKeirns @ 12/15/2008 11:04:10 PM

      He had an oath to protect and defend the Constiution of the United States of America. He didn't have an oath to protect and defend any person or institution, only the Constitution -- and he upheld that oath.

      • Posted By: bighappy @ 12/15/2008 11:47:41 PM

        If you are so fond of Constitution, it also sais that citizens must abide the law, and violators must be brought to justice. He must be tried by jury then, let see what they say. I don't think there are so many ifools like you around, so most likely they will find him guilty as charged.

        • Posted By: Dollared @ 12/16/2008 12:01:56 AM

          He is protetected by whistleblower statutes. Let him be tried; he will walk free for defending your rights.


          Benjamin Franklin had it right: "he who would give up liberty for safety will end up with neither " Paraphrased....

  • Posted By: Dollared @ 12/15/2008 11:59:51 PM

    Hero. He didn't break the law, he reported the violation of the law.

  • Posted By: AnnCKeirns @ 12/15/2008 10:50:26 PM

    This man is the only person at the Justice Department who took his oath of office seriously. He had no other option to protect and defend the constitution than the one he took. He's a hero, to be lauded! If only every person who took their oath to protect and defend the constitution as seriously we wouldn't have been in Iraq, fostered and abetted teh growth and renewal fo alQaida, tortured others. This man is ethically fat and away above his former seniors and the entire administration now leaving office far too slowly.

  • Posted By: Houstonone @ 12/15/2008 10:00:22 PM

    This man is a selfish attention seeker. I don't think he cares for this country or it's people. I can understand it if he could provide a case where any cityzen was harmed by this program. Looks like his motivation is hatred towards some one or something.

  • Posted By: Sppooo @ 12/15/2008 6:29:22 PM

    Thomas Tamm is a hero and a true patriot. He should get a medal. But to those of you who feel he is a traitor -- you who are perhaps in the military or the FBI or the CIA and who feel that Tamm has betrayed the trust you've spent years upholding -- I have this to say. Your loyalty to the system is a necessary and wonderful thing, but it makes you vulnerable to a leader who oversteps the bounds of the Constitution. We need you, and I would even say we need you to feel the way you do, but we also need people like Daniel Ellsberg and Mark Felt and Thomas Tamm among you to let us know when our government has stepped outside the bounds that the Framers, in their wisdom, established for it. Someone who acts to preserve the freedom of the American people, even when the people themselves don't seem to care much about freedom, acts to preserve the future of this country for countless citizens not yet born. Tamm is a true patriot.

    • Posted By: bighappy @ 12/15/2008 9:34:04 PM

      I am not in any of these organizations, and do not have high opinion of them. But you have interesting point - whoever is not directly involved to US protection from enemy and criminals - are willing to treat a traitor as the hero. We against "them", hah?

  • Posted By: DLand @ 12/15/2008 8:56:59 PM

    No he could not have complained to a democrat! Think about what they were doing at the time...no one would stand up to Bush/Cheney no one! He really had no choice & I for one thank him for his efforts!

    • Posted By: bighappy @ 12/15/2008 9:25:36 PM

      What are you talking about? Bush rating was already low, Democratd loudly critisized him. On another hand, if you think your representative were such rabbits, why you are keeping them?

  • Posted By: FBIGMAN @ 12/15/2008 9:19:23 PM

    The FBI certainly should have no problem going after a federal whistleblower. They have honed their skills several times on their own. Google the names of Sibel Edmonds, Robert Wright, Coleen Rowley, Bassem Youssef, Fred Whitehurst, John Roberts, Jane Turner, and Michael German. All FBI whistleblowers who exposed corruption, incompetence, or misconduct in the FBI and suffered retaliation and reprisals for speaking truth to power.

  • Posted By: bighappy @ 12/15/2008 9:14:31 PM

    What is wrong with you guys? Don't you understand that Constitution. which does not provide ways to legally protect itself from goverment abuse, is dead meat? Democtratic country will not stay this way for long if it requiores heroes to sustain its constitutional rights. American constitution is not so defensless however, otherwise US would be a police state long ago. You, Democtrats, are so full of .. political agenda, you are willing to proclame his the next MLJ only because he exposed so hated Bush. Had he did it to Clinton or Jonson - you would not say those persons are heroes. Linda Trip and Kennet Starr are not your heroes (by the way, I also think they are jerks), I did not hear that you praised Ellsberg becuse he exposed Democrats abuse of power. If some jerk will reveal sencitive information to expose Obama - I will say, together with you, that he is a criminal.
    Tamm was not a naive powereless honest citizen, he was a lawer, FBI agent, prosecutor, defiinitely new how to procede and succeed (if he was right) without newspapers, If he had lost his job because of retributions - you could name his true hero and give him good position in Obama administration. But who you stand for?

  • Posted By: FBIGMAN @ 12/15/2008 9:09:22 PM

    The FBI is a fine organization to go after a federal whistleblower, they have been destroying their own internal whistleblowers for years. Blowing the whistle on incompetence, misconduct or criminal behavior by senior officials in the FBI has resulted in reprisal and retaliation against the FBI whistleblower. Google the names of FBI whistleblowers Coleen Rowley, Fred Whitehurst, Michael German, Bassem Youssef, Jane Turner, John Roberts, Sibel Edmonds, Robert Wright, and others.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse