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."
One Day (Score:5, Interesting)
He will be recognized as a hero for defending the constitution, like those civil rights advocates who once violated state/local ordinances on segregation.
Unfortunately, today is not that day. But he is a true hero none the less.
Re:Don't take freedom for granted (Score:2, Interesting)
It's only in the last two years or so, with Obama rising
Are you talking about the same Obama that put Joe the plumber under intense investigation, getting him fired, airing the fact that he has a late library book in the 5th grade. Is this the Obama that makes you feel warm and fuzzy about the 1st amendment?
Re:Don't take freedom for granted (Score:5, Interesting)
An article everybody should read: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/apr/24/usa.comment [guardian.co.uk]
I'm afraid it could be too late already.
Re:Don't take freedom for granted (Score:5, Interesting)
nothing different than what the organized crime people will do... well except they kill everyone, the Feds are not at that level yet.
In something reminiscent of The Prisoner [wikipedia.org], the CIA threw a former LSD researcher out of a hotel window [cognitiveliberty.org] when he told his colleagues that he wanted to quit his job because of ethical issues dealing with his research. Although the CIA denied the claims (and the referenced URL doesn't get into details), there is evidence that contradicts the CIA's claim that he committed suicide by jumping out of the window. In fact the forensic evidence indicated that he was thrown out of the window (according to the American Justice account). "Frank Olson's body was exhumed in 1994, and cranial injuries indicated Olson had been knocked unconscious before exiting the window." (Ref. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKULTRA [wikipedia.org]).
Though that is just one account that was made public and that the CIA denies (even though the government eventually awarded the family financial damages).
Re:Don't take freedom for granted (Score:5, Interesting)
It should not be possible to classify illegal government activity. This man took a chance to protect my freedom and yours, if you don't respect that then I have to ask: why do you hate America's freedoms?
Joe Joe Joe (Score:3, Interesting)
You mean Joe the plumber who didn't pay his taxes so my own tax burden is larger? I don't care about his library record, but if you are going to whine about taxes on the public stage and didn't pay them, expect to be given the big 'naughty, naughty'.
People love to be angry about hypocrites.
Public beating. mob justice. (Score:3, Interesting)
disobedience. this is what such a government deserves.
this is what had happened in 1774.
Re:Don't take freedom for granted (Score:3, Interesting)
Its not much different in business either.
I was doing some contract work for a company when i found out they were being hauled into court on an almost weekly basis, for such things as contract breaches, etc... and decided it was time for me to move on.
When I left for that exact reason, still knowing many people who worked there, it eventually got back to me that they were saying that I was involved in illegal activities in regard to their business. Needless to say, everyone who heard them say this had to keep a straight face so as to not laugh at them.
However, instead of dealing with the headaches of a slander case, I simply decided to post all the information about their activities that were publicly posted on our counties courthouse website. Caton Commercial [demystify.info] was the company who did this, and decided it would be a good idea to then have a lawyer send me a letter threatening to sue me and file CRIMINAL charges for posting this info(they were calling it slander).
Not surprisingly, I have never heard from these cockroaches again since the light has been pointed on what I see as their Unethical Business Practices [demystify.info]
Re:Don't take freedom for granted (Score:3, Interesting)
So what is the NSA chartered to do exactly? I thought it was eavesdropping on all foreign communications, especially those where one end is in the USA. And hasn't it been that way since the NSA was created in 1952?
Re:Don't take freedom for granted (Score:5, Interesting)
Let me make a wild guess... The AC is not a natural born U.S. citizen and thus he has no paranoia about his legal status. If you know a thing or two about immigration law you will realize that unless you have U.S. citizenship by birth, then your legal status in this country is still up in the air even if you become a naturalized citizen and never leave your home state for 80 years after that.
Our country has pretty open departation policies and even if one becomes a naturalized U.S. citizen that person can be denaturalized via a judicial process; the process can be started at any point after naturalization until the person dies. Moreover, a naturalized citizen can be deported for crimes that took place before naturalization even if the individual was not aware of such crimes during application process. A resident alien can be deported for any crime that contains elements of moral turpitude. NIS and BIA have to show only one thing: A person was inadmissible due to a crime or because the person lacked good moral character.
Let's say that you do something questionable. If you're a permanent resident this questionable act can be turned into a crime of moral turpitude and you have your one way ticket back home. It does not matter how many years you have lived in the states or if you're a well known philantropist/community leader. If such questionable action took place before you became a citizen and a federal judge says that this as a crime of moral turpitude then you may kiss your naturalization application good-bye becuase you were not a person of good morals, a requirement for becoming a U.S. citizen, before applying for citizenship. This does not happen often but it has been done at least several times in the past. The last time it hit a 56 year old Haitian immigrant who, according to undercover cops, "knew where to buy crack cocaine." The guy got 5 years on conspiracy charges and when he got out he faced deportation proceedings. The fact that the person was indicted and convicted after becoming a U.S. citizen did not play any role because the judges ruled that the defendant was not a person of good morals to begin with. So please answer me this: What is the chance that this is not going to happen to another immigrant?
If you start some shit or express your political views in one way or another, you may hit a wrong radar and then you'll have to attend a bunch of hearings and listen to people debating about your morals. Who says that they will rule in your favor? For many immigrants who have no home other than the United States the sole question of returning to where they came from may mean life and death. Would you want to risk that? I think not. Oh and by the way stating your opinion in public media may just very well fall against you. Take a look at a deportation case against Frank Costello.
Re:Motivations?! (Score:1, Interesting)
>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
He also revealed items that were classified that were not illegal to the NYT. Under normal conditions, this would land him, and rightfully so, in jail. Mr. Tamm isn't a hero, he's a partisan [patterico.com]. He cares not one whit for "right or wrong", but for party.
In government work there are avenues for protesting the legality or ethics of almost anything. Mr. Tamm could have used one of those avenues without revealing classified information to the NYT. He chose not to simply because he wanted Bush to loose an election. He was acting for purely partisan reasons. That sir should give everyone pause.
I was in the Soviet Union when it was the Soviet Union, so that changes my perspective. Most of the time when I hear people scream fascist, or say we're loosing all our freedoms I tend to think that the shouter is both ignorant and I am thankful that they haven't lived under true fascism, or really lost their freedom.
We all must be watchful, but unlike Mr. Tamm, honesty, and reason will help us maintain a free world, not blind partisanship. Old Soviet Union was full of blind partisans.
I couldn't quite find a car analogy.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Don't take freedom for granted (Score:2, Interesting)
I would argue that it's not particularly selling out. The job of a representative is sort of twofold; one is to represent the interest of the people he or she is serving (i.e. their district, state, or country), and the second is to do what he feels is best for the country. The two are not always in agreement. All you need to do is consider legislation that will help one part of the country more than the others (e.g. corn subsidies don't particularly help people living in NYC, and very well may be damaging). But more than that, the two may be in conflict even ignoring area of effects.
For instance, take gay marriage. Suppose that the electoral college, by some stroke of madness, elected me as president instead of Obama. (You never know; the edit distance between our names is only 18; they could make a few typos.) Furthermore, Congress and the States accidentally pass a couple Constitutional amendments that give me dictatorial powers. Ooops. Anyway, I am firmly in favor of gay marriage. But I have a much harder time saying that I should declare that it is legal throughout the land, because it's so widely opposed.
Take the argument a step further. Instead of becoming Supreme Dictator of the US through the electoral college going bonkers, I am instead running for the position. I'm not going to say "I'm going to allow gay marriage", but not (just) because it would keep me from getting elected -- mostly because I probably wouldn't anyway.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that a discrepancy between how a politician actually thinks and how he votes is not necessarily a bad thing. What you need to look at is whether they follow their platform, and do what they say they will. In this case, Obama may be taking a "stronger" stance on homeland security than he would like to. I'm not telepathic, so I can't tell.