Wiretap Whistleblower, a Life in Limbo? 521
Newsweek has an interesting report on Thomas M. Tamm, the individual who blew the whistle on the Federal Government's warrantless wiretaps. The piece takes a look at some of the circumstances leading up to the disclosure and what has happened since. "After the raid, Justice Department prosecutors encouraged Tamm to plead guilty to a felony for disclosing classified information — an offer he refused. More recently, Agent Lawless, a former prosecutor from Tennessee, has been methodically tracking down Tamm's friends and former colleagues. The agent and a partner have asked questions about Tamm's associates and political meetings he might have attended, apparently looking for clues about his motivations for going to the press, according to three of those interviewed."
Don't take freedom for granted (Score:5, Insightful)
Very chilling. Do not take your freedom for granted. I'll share my personal story to show how quickly a thriving democracy can turn into an oppresive regime, here in the US.
Remember the times that led to the invsasion of Iraq? American flags on every highway overpass?
I just happened to be in the process of getting my green card, which means my future was at the mercy of a faceless US government bureaucrat. A rejection and I'd have to pack with my family (including two US born children) and find another place in the globe to settle.
I had published a couple of letters to the editors in the San Jose Mercury News, discussing politics. I was reading foreign media which were hinting that US intelligence on Iraq WMD was bogus. Guess what? I stood very quiet, very silent. Who knows who was listening and how far the goverment was willing to go to silence dissent. If it had been just me, I would have stood up and fought for my rights, but with my family in mind, I decided to cave.
Think about this for a second: the best place on earth, and still scared of what the government might do to me. Call me paranoid, but it felt like a very real threat. It's only in the last two years or so, with Obama rising, that the oppressive feeling has left.
--
http://fairsoftware.net/ [fairsoftware.net]
Re:Don't take freedom for granted (Score:5, Insightful)
and it's not unexpected. If you blow the whistle on illegal activities the perpetrators of the crime will harass you and your family to pay you back.
The feds are simply punishing him and his family for outing their illegal activities. nothing different than what the organized crime people will do... well except they kill everyone, the Feds are not at that level yet.
"apparently looking for clues about his motivation (Score:5, Insightful)
Motivations? (Score:5, Insightful)
Errr I'm taking a massive shot in the dark here but I'm guessing that the motivation would be
CONCERN ABOUT THE MASSIVE SUBVERSION OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND THE CONSTITUTION
I mean I know its a crazy mad sort of idea that someone might be motivated by decency and the desire for what is right rather than some political ideology. When George W. Bush and Dick Cheney talk about the principles of American freedom... well that is what this man has stood up to defend.
How sad that its the defender of freedom who is being shafted, while those who look to subvert the constitution are getting away scot free.
Motives for going to the press? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Don't take freedom for granted (Score:1, Insightful)
Would another place on the globe be so bad? How about the place you were before you got your original green card? You published a couple letters. That's great. You discussed politics. Even better. You stood very quiet. Why? Who knows who was listening? Probably no one.
Pure paranoid conjecture. I can't believe someone modded this up.
Clues about motivations? (Score:3, Insightful)
blew the whistle on the Federal Government's warrantless wiretaps... [agent] looking for clues about his motivations for going to the press
Concern over illegality and the fact that his superiors didn't seem to care that it was? Isn't that the obvious answer? Are they expecting to find that he's a communist mole, sent to destroy us by exposing our blatant disregard for our own laws? I thought that's what whistleblowers were *supposed* to do. Who cares why?
Re:Don't take freedom for granted (Score:2, Insightful)
I'll share my personal story to show how quickly a thriving democracy can turn into an oppresive regime, here in the US.
...
I had published a couple of letters to the editors in the San Jose Mercury News, discussing politics. I was reading foreign media which were hinting that US intelligence on Iraq WMD was bogus. Guess what? I stood very quiet, very silent. Who knows who was listening and how far the goverment was willing to go to silence dissent. If it had been just me, I would have stood up and fought for my rights, but with my family in mind, I decided to cave.
How does that story show anything other than your own paranoia?
Re:Don't take freedom for granted (Score:2, Insightful)
Important note: the "Feds" you mention are the Republicans who were tapping phone lines. Somebody has to say it.
Re:Agent Lawless? (Score:5, Insightful)
What the hell is this Lawless dude's deal anyway? Checking out Tamm's motivations? Oh, I'm sure he must be a terrorist, right?
Fsck that. Tamm reported what he clearly felt was illegal activity being performed by the federal government. As far as I'm concerned, I don't want Lawless spending another red cent of my tax dollars going after Tamm. Tamm is a patriot as far as I'm concerned. We should all stand up and applaud his efforts in exposing this ugly, terrible government corruption. These acts are illegal, going against our highest laws, morals and ideals. The Founding Fathers are rolling in their graves at this immense injustice.
If anyone is a criminal, it's Agent Lawless.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Don't take freedom for granted (Score:1, Insightful)
Very chilling.
Dude commits a felony and they go after him for it and that is "chilling"? Howso?
I'll share my personal story to show how quickly a thriving democracy can turn into an oppresive regime, here in the US. ... I stood very quiet, very silent. Who knows who was listening and how far the goverment was willing to go to silence dissent.
Wow. So you think that your own baseless decision to be "very slient" is evidence of an "oppressive regime."
Think about this for a second: the best place on earth, and still scared of what the government might do to me. Call me paranoid
You're paranoid.
It's only in the last two years or so, with Obama rising, that the oppressive feeling has left.
You're also utterly delusional.
Re:Don't take freedom for granted (Score:2, Insightful)
The people and press spent resources to heavily investigate Joe's background.
Being in the spotlight has its consequences
Re:Don't take freedom for granted (Score:5, Insightful)
It's chilling because you have to break the law in order to even report another (arguably greater) crime, and there is absolutely no consideration for the whistleblower during his own persecution.
Where on the scale of criminal law does broad scale warrantless wiretapping fall?
=Smidge=
Re:Don't take freedom for granted (Score:5, Insightful)
You gotta love the freeper mentality: "You believe that the government in the continental US is as degenerate and unaccountable as our military in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay? You're paranoid!"
Look at history: COINTELPRO, agents provocateurs, enemies lists, McCarthyism.
Six years ago a radio station had children stomping on and setting fire to Dixie Chicks albums because they were ashamed of the president, unwittingly reenacting one of the funniest scenes from Starship Troopers. Who knew how far it would go? Who knew how stupid and paranoid the government would become? If the citizenry was any indication, very. After 9/11, our country was on the short bus to crazytown.
Re:Don't take freedom for granted (Score:5, Insightful)
But being an ideologue is so much fun!
Seriously, Obama had an opportunity to set himself apart when Telco immunity came to the floor but he joined with rank and file on this issue. Government, on both sides of the isle, has no desire to ever give power up.
Re:Don't take freedom for granted (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Don't take freedom for granted (Score:1, Insightful)
Perhaps you are not ready for freedom.
Perhaps you are just an arrogant asshole that needs to get off of its high horse.
Seriously, maybe you don't realise, but the GP didn't have a legal entitlement to stay in the USA yet. IF he had been shipped off, for whatever reason... well, he could've fought it (in theory; in practice, it likely wouldn't have gotten him anywhere, it would've been expensive, and he might not even have gotten the visa to attend the trial etc. - don't underestimate the government's ability and willingness to throw stones in your way), but in the end, he wouldn't have been entitled to anything. If his application had been rejected - tough luck, sucks to be you, next please.
Not waking the sleeping dogs until you've actually made sure you're over the fence so they can't reach you anymore is a good idea, and your chastising the GP for not doing so just because YOU can do so from the safety of behind the fence where you've been all your life just shows that you Don't Get It(tm).
UnConstitutional (Score:5, Insightful)
I think this statement says it all: "..If somebody were to say, who am I to do that? I would say, 'I had taken an oath to uphold the Constitution'..."
I think that counts for a lot. If the gov is doing something unconstitutional, then it's your duty to uphold that document first. As a gov official, you have an oath to that body of laws first and foremost. Loyalty to gove agencies or executives is secondary at best.
Re:Don't take freedom for granted (Score:5, Insightful)
It _is_ chilling. The man revealed a major set of constitutional violations, by the NSA, in collaboration with AT&T. There are various basic laws that _required_ him to report such felonies. And it is exactly such abuses that the freedom of the press was designed to encourage the revelation of.
The man deserves a Medal of Honor.
Re:Don't take freedom for granted (Score:4, Insightful)
The real issue here is hypocrisy. While the government wants to have immunity for itself and its conspirators for breaking the law; they insist on punishing a person who thought he was doing the right thing (and perhaps something patriotic) by exposing this illegal behavior.
Re:Don't take freedom for granted (Score:2, Insightful)
So, according to you, Obama == democrats. Hmmm, that's like saying that ME == set of all sexy men in the world. It's a little far fetched.
And what branch of government is the NSA part of? And how many Democrats run that branch? Answers - executive, NONE.
The comment was *who* was tapping and wrecking the whistleblower's life - not who has been ineffective at stopping the Republican President from wiretapping.
So tell me again why simply saying that it's Republicans who are committing these crimes is ideological? Got news for you. Nixon was a Republican, and that is also a fact.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Bush and his cronies (Score:2, Insightful)
Every second these people are allowed to live is another denial of any true justice.
These people should not be allowed to return to a life of luxury when so many people who actually worked for a living have lost everything they own.
I'd like to see these "men" marched out of the whitehouse forced to their knees and shot publicly. Anything less is a denial of justice.
I bet Obama pardons them all.
"Money stands for money, the devil for his own" -Billy Bragg
Realisticly every agent participating in this harassment needs to be fired and banned from holding a government job.
I've had quite enough of ineffective pussyfoot solutions.
Re:Don't take freedom for granted (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh come off it? Those of us outside your country have long enough memories to remember that Bush did not give PERMISSION to the NSA but ORDERED the NSA to perform these wiretaps [cnn.com].
I sincerely hope that was ignorance not spin you were displaying there.
and clue #2 (Score:5, Insightful)
Government officials of the American Republic swear an oath to the Constitution, NOT to the President or any other individual.
Re:Don't take freedom for granted (Score:2, Insightful)
Which Democrat ordered the NSA to wiretap? Please inform us.
Re:Motives for going to the press? (Score:3, Insightful)
Didn't you get the memo? Being patriotic today means wearing flag pins; hating those that aren't like you, particularity if the government tells you they are bad; not questioning anything the government does, vilifying those who would dare to question authority (how dare they!); and parroting anything that right-wing liberals like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh say. Any deviation from this means you are a terrorist, don't believe in god, and hate America.
Get with the program guy, and don't be late to the Two Minutes' Hate.
Re:Don't take freedom for granted (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Don't take freedom for granted (Score:5, Insightful)
I sincerely hope that was ignorance not spin you were displaying there.
With the knowledge and implied consent of the leaders of both houses of Congress (including Democrats); with the stated legal approval of the head of the FISA Court of Appeals; with the legal justification written by the Clinton Justice Department.
I am not in favor of the practice. I'm against it. But I am not blind enough to say this was all Bush.
Re:Don't take freedom for granted (Score:5, Insightful)
>Um. That had nothing to do with the government. You actually think the CIA orchestrated the burning of Dixie Chicks albums? You think they give a damn about the Dixie Chicks?
Wow. You deliberately and methodically misconstrue what he said in a way that's designed to discourage and wear down all intelligent discussion.
Congratulations.
Actually, your post is the BEST example so far of the mentality behind those burnings.
Re:Don't take freedom for granted (Score:2, Insightful)
Thankfully, with Obama in charge things may or may not change for the better, but at least they won't get any worse. Shame on those of you who voted for the senile puppet McCain and his Brunette Barbie doll Sarah Palin.
you had a awesome post up until this point. you had to throw that in there didn't you.
look Obama is a elected official, from Chicago!
If you think for one second that he is going to do anything different form Illinois business as usual you are seriously mistaken.
want to know what Illinois business as usual is, look at the news for the past week.
Now I am not saying McCain is any better, he is just another elected official.
They are 2 sides of the same coin, and that coin is the raping of the United States.
Just one is going to rape her to her face and one is going to rape her from behind.
I guess the question is; How do you want to be raped?
Re:UnConstitutional (Score:5, Insightful)
"I had taken an oath to uphold the Constitution"
In the military you swear an oath to obey the commander in chief. In intel agencies you swear an oath of secrecy, like this one for NSA:
" Upon being cleared to protect the sensitive information of the National Security Agency, I subscribe to this oath freely, without mental reservation, and with the full intent to exercise meticulous care in abiding by its items.
I solemnly swear that I will not reveal to any person any information pertaining to the classified activities of the National Security Agency, except as necessary toward the proper performance of my duties or as specifically authorized by a duly responsible superior known to me to be authorized to receive this information.
I further solemnly swear that I will report without delay to my security representative the details and circumstances of any case which comes within my knowledge of an unauthorized person obtaining or attempting to obtain information concerning the classified operations of the National Security Agency.
I fully appreciate and understand that the security of the information and activities of the National Security Agency is of vital importance to the welfare and defense of the United States. I affirm that I am familiar with the provisions of Section 793, 794 and 798, Title 18 United States Code.
I do hereby affirm any understanding that the obligations of this oath will continue even after severance of my connections with the National Security Agency and that they remain fully binding on me during peacetime as well as during wartime. "
This doesn't mention the constitution... which means NSA plays by a different set of rules than the justice department.
However, as a Justice department appointment, he is *required* by his oath to report what he found the NSA doing. He isn't being a hero, defender of freedom or "whistle blower" he just did his job as he swore, in an oath, that he would....
If the DOJ doesn't like it, maybe they should change their oath and mission so their employees are *allowed* to stay mum when they discover people violating the constitution and bill of rights (which would kind of eliminate them from doing their job).
Then again, maybe the NSA needs to do their job better so people don't find out what they are doing.
Yet again, maybe agencies shouldn't violate the constitution and bill of rights.
If the gov is going to violate it's own rules, maybe it should just burn them and start a totalitarian state of some sort and be done with it. Why beat around the bush (no pun intended)?
-Viz
Re:Don't take freedom for granted (Score:3, Insightful)
But he committed a crime. Period. And purusing him for that is not "chilling," it's following the law.
You are wrong. Here is why you are wrong: the methods they have used are excessive. What you have here is a show of force. Also, and this is part of the legal system in the US, you have to look at the circumstances of his actions. The man is apparently far from alone from people that were working in those departments in feeling that what has been going on is wrong. It shows a crass disregard for the Constitution, but then Bush isn't really an American because he thinks is "just a damn piece of paper" (his words).
It is chilling knowing he may face the death penalty potentially for his actions. It is chilling knowing how liberal the Bush administration has been with the death penalty (article itself mentions it being like a rubber stamp "yes" but all perfectly legal). It is chilling not knowing if he will really get a fair trial, or if anything will ever be done about what he was whistleblowing about in the first place.
No, sir. You are wrong. This story is very chilling indeed, as his account.
It is illegal (Score:3, Insightful)
The government may not classify something to prevent disclosure if it would cover up an illegal act. That's not the right wording, but it is the gist of the law. Basically, classifying info to cover it up is, in itself, illegal. The problem is that the people who are classifying the material are most likely the ones doing the illegal act in the first place, and adding a cover up charge is relatively inconsequential to the actual illegal activity. It's like perjury - if you lie and lose, you're no worse off; if you lie and win, you generally are scott free (since, based on the evidence available, you didn't actually lie).
Re:Don't take freedom for granted (Score:4, Insightful)
Obviously we need to pass a law making it illegal for the Govt to "classify" its illegal activities.
Classifying something to conceal improper actions is already illegal and the penalties (if actually enforced) are not slight. However, interpreting a classification guide can be highly dependent on the derivative classifier reviewing it. So, if you squint your eyes a little and dig around some, you can legally classify damn near anything.
Re:One Day (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Don't take freedom for granted (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't see anything that suggests Obama had a problem with being asked a question. He handled it extremely well. The only problem is that he said "Share the wealth," which the Republicans and Libertarians twisted into "OMG Socialism! Obama is after your mooooniiiiiiiessssss!!11!one"
The issue is that the McCain campaign took that dialog with Joe and ran with it, and tried to make it a large part of their platform. The whole "socialism" scaremongering was coming from the Republicans. McCain, not Obama, was shoving Joe into the spotlight, name-dropping him in debates and rallies, in attempt to drum up support. And the press, loving a story that sells, ran with it. Turns out that Joe is a hypocrite, which is great news, when "news" is "shit that isn't important but sells lots of papers."
Maybe Obama could have said "Hey guys, knock it off." Maybe some of the Dems would have listened. But I'm not sure why you think that the press or McCain would care to listen. There's nothing that suggest that Obama drug Joe's name through the dirt. At best you had a couple of overzealous Dems acting independently. Trying to make him responsible for that is intellectually dishonest and unfair, especially when you overlook the way in which Joe and the Republicans were fanning the flames.
Re:Follow the money (Score:3, Insightful)
The flow of money will find a way; for instance were we to set hard caps on campaign money and level the playing field the money (incentives) would just find another way from the constituency to the politician. It's the sickness that is democracy...ironically there's a sense in which it's democracy's greatest strength.
The best of a bunch of bad options :)
Re:Motivations? (Score:2, Insightful)
Keep in mind that freedom is something that needs to be preserved and fought for - it isn't permanent. This man is one of our freedom fighters, and our society owes him a debt. Unfortunately, he will probably never be properly rewarded for his service.
SOP (Score:3, Insightful)
"After the raid, Justice Department prosecutors encouraged Tamm to plead guilty to a felony for disclosing classified information -- an offer he refused. More recently, Agent Lawless, a former prosecutor from Tennessee, has been methodically tracking down Tamm's friends and former colleagues. The agent and a partner have asked questions about Tamm's associates and political meetings he might have attended, apparently looking for clues about his motivations for going to the press, according to three of those interviewed."
uh, that's maybe supposed to sound all spooky and scary and stuff, but that's stuff that happens BEFORE you even get a clearance!
Re:Don't take freedom for granted (Score:3, Insightful)
What evils the government can get away with is in every way dependent on the public's acquiescence. A public that enjoys the spectacle of stomping on the disloyal is one that has no problem with the government abusing its authority.
Re:Don't take freedom for granted (Score:3, Insightful)
What evils the government can get away with is in every way dependent on the public's acquiescence. A public that enjoys the spectacle of stomping on the disloyal is one that has no problem with the government abusing its authority.
Most people -- obviously not including you here -- see a significant difference between individuals expressing themselves by destroying their own property -- causing harm to the liberty of no one -- and the government abusing its authority to take away the rights of its citizens.
Re:Time to Play (Score:3, Insightful)
It's always amazes me how those who scream bloody murder about privacy around cases such as this, especially when there is evidence of wrongdoing... throw caution to the wind and blatantly violate someone else's privacy.
Oh right... it's ok for you to do it because... Lawless is bad and Tamm is good? Because you agree with one and not the other? One persons privacy is more valuable and should be protected over another?
If not... haven't you just lost the ability to cry if someone investigates you or posts your personal information online?
Do tell the class... what is the point of your posting agent Lawless's personal information here? Harassment? Intimidation?
Ahh moral supremacy at it's finest!
Re:Don't take freedom for granted (Score:3, Insightful)
Socialism is just an idea.
Yes, the idea of taking away individual liberty by force for the "public good" (as defined by the people using the force). Sounds pretty damned scary to me.
Our interstate highway system, fire departments, and police departments are examples of socialism properly applied.
Police department absolutely is not. You're not understanding the concept. It is acceptable for government to take a small piece of your liberty in order to protect your individual rights, because that is the only way society can work.
We cannot have everyone enforcing their own laws, so we have a social compact that we let the government enforce the laws. This is the best way to ensure that our rights are protected, without the rights of others being abused in the process. So no, it is not socialism to have legislators, a court system, or law enforcement. Neither the military.
Similarly, as any fire the Fire Department is needed for is a danger to everyone, a Fire Department is not socialism.
Some republican fanboys try to portray it as the other way around: that Joe asked a question and the Obama campaign went crazy over it. Not true.
As far as you know. Again, while I agree there's no evidence of this, if it were the other way around people on the left would say "of course McCain's campaign was behind it."
I honestly don't remember any of that from the Obama campaign, and I'm not sure how I missed that.
Obama invoked Joe's name quite a bit in that one debate, and in speeches around the same time.
As a percentage of income, the tax burden is heaviest on the middle class. I'd like to see a little more fairness in the system, and I don't feel that asking for that is socialism.
The way to do that is not jacking up marginal tax rates, but going to a flat tax. The problem is, you're only looking at the aggregate data: many people in the top income levels DO pay higher effective tax rates. Think of all the rich people who pay virtually no tax: that means many other "rich" people make up for it, because by far more tax revenue comes from the top quintile.
When Obama talks about "fairness" he doesn't mean that everyone pays the same amount, or percentage, of their income. He means that the rich should pay a greater percentage.
Re:I wouldn't live in the USA (Score:4, Insightful)
totalitarian, authoritarian
You keep using those words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean.
Re:Don't take freedom for granted (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, the point is that people were being organized to stomp on Dixie Chicks albums because they disagreed with Bush.
Good for them. Free expression is a wonderful thing.
The point of democracy and free speech is that, if you disagree with someone, you should be free to do so openly -- with an intention of opening discussion on the matter.
Not at all. The right of Free Speech has nothing to do with intent, unless that intent is criminal.
The point of the Dixie-Chicks effigy burning was to suppress the dissension
Even if it was, as long as it didn't take the form of illegal initimidation or some other form of force, it is a protected right.
(and to discourage anybody else from disagreeing with bush)
Maybe. So what? How is that a bad thing? Isn't that what Keith Olbermann does every night, but from the left, by abusing anyone who says something he disagrees with?
and not to engage in a sane discussion of why Bush was right or the Dixie Chicks were wrong.
Again, the First Amendment has nothing to do with that. See, what you don't get is that in order for this to make sense, the government itself would need to be the arbiter of what is a "sane discussion." And that itself would have a serious chilling effect on speech. So no, intentions are beside the point entirely.
Last year, a friend of mine spent some time down in the US (I'm in Canada) on a course, and she found herself nervous about suggesting to someone that not everybody liked Bush. The scary thing was, that after she made that comment, a number of other people in the course came to her in private and noted that they too were afraid to simply suggest that Bush was unpopular.
Where I live in the U.S., it's completely opposite: you can become a social outcast for suggesting you LIKE Bush. So I guess this is proof that the left is trying to suppress free speech?
That was, I suggest, both the intent and the effect of vilifying the Dixie Chicks over what was simply a side remark about personal beliefs. That intent, and effect are both detrimental to a democratic society ... anathema, even.
Not remotely. Worse, YOUR attempt to demonize and villify people for expressing themselves is doing precisely what you are attacking.
Re:Don't take freedom for granted (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyone who isn't choking on his own whargarbl understands that violence enacted vicariously through symbolism is associated with the persecution of real people.
Where "is associated" means nothing significant to this discussion. In a similar way, public statements against the legal governing authority are associated with violent overthrows of that government. So everyone who speaks out against Bush should be seen, according to YOUR logic, as favoring an illegal and violent coup against Bush.
Please think a little harder.
Re:Agent Lawless? (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, I think the irony is the name "Justice Department".
Re:Don't take freedom for granted (Score:3, Insightful)
You are making the assumption that Tamm tried going through proper channels (the article says he talked to his boss and unofficially to a buddy who worked for a Congressman) and that the activity in question was actually illegal (the article very carefully doesn't say which activity Tamm reported.) Going to the media can cause even worse damage, for example by thwarting an ongoing investigation into those activities, or by revealing a legal activity and therefore causing the enemy to change their behavior to avoid detection.
The article says Tamm acted because he wanted to embarrass the administration. That's never an acceptable reason to reveal national security secrets. Other than that, I'm sympathetic to the guy; it sounds like he and I have similar opinions.
Re:Don't take freedom for granted (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with that argument (though I do find it somewhat sympathetic) is that compromises are necessary in government or nothing will get done (though maybe not a bad thing), which means that Obama voting for the bill with telecom immunity (saying he voted for telecom immunity is at best imprecise and at worst misleading, as he voted against it when it was by itself) doesn't necessarily say a whole lot. It is a very large and totally unsupported jump to equate that with anything along the lines of he would have done it in office or whatever.
It's a less extreme what you'll sometimes see where some legislator will attach $PET_PROJECT which most people are against to some bill that provides for increased child abduction protection or something. It's politically extremely hard to vote against something like that, or next election you'll get reamed during the campaign on that issue.
Because of this, it's even hard to say that Obama really supported (himself, as opposed to part of his platform) the bill that he voted for, since he could have easily been worried that voting against the bill would have hurt him in the election if he was portrayed as even weaker on national security than he was.
He's a hero (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Don't take freedom for granted (Score:4, Insightful)
Had it been his employer that he had blown the whistle on, he would enjoy protection against retaliation under federal law. But since his employer is the government, his friends and family are being asked about his political affiliations.
In your babysitting of the thread you appear to have chosen to act dense. But I'm sure you know what chilling effects represent: the possibility of suppressing free speech without actually outlawing it.
If you can go to jail for blowing the whistle on the government's lawbreaking, then an important aspect of free speech suddenly becomes dangerous. That much should be obvious to anyone.
In an enlightened society, injustice should not be able to hide behind secrecy, and those who expose it should not have to risk their life or freedom to do so. But I suppose that as long as there are terr'ists about, men like Tamm will be a felons rather than a heroes. And there will always be terrorists, or at least as long as we see fit to fund and arm foreign militias. So "felon" it is. Go team.
Re:Don't take freedom for granted (Score:3, Insightful)
You saw Liberals and socialists? Where? I looked hard. I didn't see any Liberals. I thought I spotted some socialists disguised as Republicans telling us that the State should have a stake in the banks and mortgage companies. But I didn't see any Liberals. I did see Obama, Clinton, Pelosi, and others wax liberal and then march in lock step alongside neocons dressed like Republicans though.
Agreed. I haven't seen any real conservatives in a long time, and by that I mean political conservatives, not social conservatives.
Motivations?! (Score:3, Insightful)
I think it's indicative of just how fouled up the government is when one's motivations are investigated when you spill the beans on blatantly illegal government activities. Seems to me that questioning one's motivations in a case like this isn't too far removed from the old Soviet Union's practice of labeling anyone that criticized the government of being mentally ill.
Tamm wasn't an elected official and likely never had to swear to uphold the Constitution, the laws of the land, and all that, but I am sure glad he took it upon himself to call the New York Times when he found out what the government was up to.
Re:Follow the money (Score:5, Insightful)
He also added that the reason Democracy is a good idea is because in a random pool of people
the bad guys push in random directions depending on their needs.
The good guys push in about the same direction.
The net effect in the long term is in the right direction.
G
Re:Don't take freedom for granted (Score:3, Insightful)
I think those that benefit from society should pay back in order to maintain society.
I think taking from one person by force, against his will -- just because you can -- in order to give it to others, is a criminal act.
I don't view my tax money as wasted.
Your opinion is not at issue here. Your view that others should be forced to comply with your opinion, taking away their rights, is at issue.
You start out by saying that its wrong to take individual liberty for the greater good, followed up by saying that its OK if its for protecting individual rights, and end with saying that, its ok if its for the common good (its a danger to everyone).
False.
Life, liberty, property. These are all closely related. Your life implies your liberty (the right to do what you wish with your life). Your property is the product of your life and your liberty (what you create for yourself). An assault on property IS an assault on life and liberty.
So no, I did not invoke "the common good" when I talked about fire protection. I am still talking about individual rights. Yes, everyone could have their own fire department contract etc., but this threatens my rights too, even if I have the best protection possible, because my neighbor might not have protection, which threatens me.
Anyone can get cancer, so its a danger to everyone.
Which is why I favor laws preventing others from forcing carcinogens on you, and why I favor the existence of the CDC in order to protect us from potential epidemics of communicable diseases. But I do not favor government paying to cure YOUR cancer (unless, of course, government caused it in the first place).
Can you see the difference? In the former, someone is causing harm to you to take away your rights; in the second, something is causing a mass direct threat to our individual rights.
But in the latter, no such thing is happening. No one is taking away your rights. There was no mass threat to your rights. If someone harmed you, you can sue them to pay for your medical care. Otherwise, it's on you.
I guess universal health care and government funded cancer research would be OK, by your own logic.
Only if you don't understand the logic. :-)
I notice you didn't address the interstate highway system.
I'm busy today, I can't address everything, so I will leave that one alone for now. It's a complicated issue: there's a reason why "post roads" were explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.
The only difference between you and I is that we disagree on the degree that is appropriate.
Nope. What I am talking about is not a matter of degree at all.
Hey, you want to argue a flat tax? I'm all for that. I think that's the fairest way, assuming that we make sure not to dick over people under the poverty line. I've also seen the "fair tax," which is based on sales. My only problem with that is that it could be regressive if done improperly.
I'd prefer no income tax. All income tax is bad as a means of raising revenue, unless your actual goal is to control people. But a flat tax would be better than what we've got.
When Obama talks about "fairness" he doesn't mean that everyone pays the same amount, or percentage, of their income. He means that the rich should pay a greater percentage.
Maybe so, but to a great deal of people, a progressive tax system is fair.
Unfortunately.
its hard to argue that its easier for a rich man to pay 30 percent of his income in taxes than it is for a middle class man to pay 20 percent of his income in taxes.
Sure, but why bother trying? How "easy" it is doesn't matter. It's easy to do lots of things that take away
Re:Don't take freedom for granted (Score:4, Insightful)
In other words, when his principles could actually matter, he caved, but now that he's secure and it makes no real difference, he can do whatever he feels like.
Martin Luther King Jr. said, "The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and conveniences, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy." As such I think it is far more telling to see what he did when the race was still in question.
Re:Don't take freedom for granted (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course there's a difference, but it doesn't mean it's right.
Healthy political discourse requires respect for your opponents. The English term of "the loyal opposition" comes to mind. We may not agree with each other but we should at least be able to converse civilly and respect our disagreements.
The problem is that this respect, what remains of it, is being systematically destroyed. The whole country is being divided into "us" and "them", with "them" considered to be idiots, shysters, or traitors.
So while it may be perfectly legal to publicly destroy works of artists who disagree with you, and it may well be perfectly morally acceptable, it's also a provocative symptom of the destruction of political discourse in this country.
Not everything is black and white. These people had every right to do what they did, but it's still very bad.
Nobody asked you to live here (Score:1, Insightful)
Seriously, we don't allow anybody to live in the U.S. who can't understand what a totalitarian government is.
Hint: Generally, totalitarian governments don't simply quit every few years because that's what the law says they must do. There are many other reasons, but I suspect you don't quite understand yet.
Re:Don't take freedom for granted (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Don't take freedom for granted (Score:2, Insightful)
So he compromised the privacy of his fellow citizens to get his hands on power. What a great leader. His actions are an example to follow. We surely must trust him, because things like this show that he will do whatever in order to protect the rights of the people. Because destrying people's right to privacy is an outstanding example of defending people's rights. Because he did it for our own good. /sarcasm
Fuckin' Doublethinkers!
Re:UnConstitutional (Score:3, Insightful)
What part of the constitution being the highest law of the land don't you understand? The NSA is a government entity, and all government entities are governed by the constitution. You can't just pick and choose and create a shadow government that claims it doesn't have to obey the basic written law of our country. Of course, that seems to be what the Bush administration has done over the last 8 years.
Re:Don't take freedom for granted (Score:4, Insightful)
Because of this, it's even hard to say that Obama really supported (himself, as opposed to part of his platform) the bill that he voted for, since he could have easily been worried that voting against the bill would have hurt him in the election if he was portrayed as even weaker on national security than he was.
So...your argument is that he didn't really believe in what he was doing, he just sold out his principles to get elected?
And that's supposed to make me feel better?
Re:Don't take freedom for granted (Score:3, Insightful)
Why do you hate science?
What does science have to do with anything? This is politics - do you understand the difference?
Re:The FBI oath of Office (Score:3, Insightful)
It's pudge. Read his blog/website. He's about as authoritarian as they come.
The problem with the authoritarian type is that they see no problem with laws that are mutually exclusive, nor do they see problems with laws that produce bad side effects. It's the law, it has to be obeyed. If it's a bad law, the courts will throw it out. Any issues that arise during the process of throwing out the bad law are merely consequences of disobeying the law, and should therefore be supported by the general population.
Fun, isn't it? In this world view, there is no way out of a bad law, unless someone in the legislature decides to change the law. Everyone else is lawbreaking scum.
Re:Time to Play (Score:2, Insightful)
Why would the Slashdot editors delete public information of a public official obtained from public sources?
Was there a black-friday 2-for-1 sale on bags of stupid that I didn't hear about?
Let's All Help (Score:3, Insightful)
If everyone who ever had anything to do with Tamm (to the best of their admittedly human and therefore fallible memory can recall) got word to Agent Lawless that they might have something to contribute, said Lawless (Agent) might suddenly suffer an overabundance of leads to follow.
The fact that he (Tamm) apparently smuggled his sister out of a research hospital aboard a Firefly class ship would probably be at the extreme end of such reports. Most would probably be more plausible. "He told me he knew how to make free long distance calls." (Later - He said all I needed to do was call those that started with 800.)
Tamm might go down for this. The guy who did the same to the tobacco companies did too. But, they made a movie based on it ("The Insider") so people could know there was a story, and all the billions of dollars the tobacco companies paid to the states (most subsequentely wasted by the states) were a pay off they made before the statute of limitations expired and their true culpability became known. One day it will.
Hopefully Tamm will get picked up by a large enough concern to protect him. There are, after all, corporations that are large enough to deflect such puny attempts at law enforcement, whether questionable or not.