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.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Important note: the "Feds" you mention are the Republicans who were tapping phone lines. Somebody has to say it.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
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:5, Informative)
In Washington it's all about playing ball with special interests that have the power.
It would take a massive shift in the way we vote for it to become practical for a politician to stand up for what it right. Right now anyone who stands up gets swatted down and thrown out of DC. To add another cliché, in US politics you better not rock the boat.
Follow the money (Score:4, Informative)
ATnT was the biggest contributor to the party conventions (well to the DFL; don't remember if they were #1 for GOP.)
Fix the money and then politicians who will not compromise their ethics can get somewhere. When they compromise in order to win it makes you wonder just how far they will let their ethics lapse and if they will get worse with prolonged exposure to corporatism.
Re: (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: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: (Score:3, Informative)
He had an opportunity to not get elected if he voted against the bill.
It's the opportunities before him when he takes office that I'm most interested in.
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: (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 wo
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: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.
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:4, Informative)
Get your facts straight. The legal justification was not written by the Clinton Justice department. Most, if not all, of the legal justification was done by John Yoo [wikipedia.org] (in the Office of Legal Counsel) and David Addington [wikipedia.org] (Cheney's legal counsel, now chief of staff). They were the people who empowered the NSA, the Justice Department and the President to act so egregiously.
Re:Don't take freedom for granted (Score:4, Informative)
Get your facts straight. The legal justification was not written by the Clinton Justice department.
Oh, so you don't know about the Jamie Gorelick's infamous statement on FISA [nationalreview.com] in 1994: "The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes." "Inherent authority" means, of course, that Congress cannot take that authority away with a statute, such as FISA.
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: (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: (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: (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 co
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Don't take freedom for granted (Score:4, Funny)
Hey, be nice. Maybe they just have dementia.
-:sigma.SB
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: (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
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
We also need stronger anonymous protection of whistleblowers and journalists who choose to let their sources remain anonymous so long as the whistleblower had reason to believe that the goverment(or corporation etc.) was involved in illegal activity.
Ideally, we should disband our intelligence services and rebuild them with much more oversight(as for the Department of "Homeland Security", we sho
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
You're right that assuming Obama is going to magically fix things is wrong, but had you paid any attention at all to the situation in Illinois (I live here), you'd know that Obama got a hearty "Fuck that guy" from Blago because he wasn't interested in
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: (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: (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: (Score:2, Insightful)
The people and press spent resources to heavily investigate Joe's background.
Being in the spotlight has its consequences
Re: (Score:2)
And Obama could have told them to knock it off. He never did. Obama was the one who pulled Joe out of the masses, and asked for a question. Just because he didn't like being asked if he was a socialist is no reason to destro the poor guy.
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: (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 l
Re: (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).
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.
Re:Don't take freedom for granted (Score:4, Informative)
No more intense than everyone else who stood up in the spotlight. Doesn't the public have a right to know whether the claims people are making are true or not? And it was the press as much as Obama who went and investigated. I don't think we really want to discourage our free press from investigating claims that someone is trying to use to influence a presidential election, do we?
So, not everything they uncovered was nice. That's not their fault. If you want to stand up and complain about taxes, it helps if you've actually paid them. Joe the plumber learned that the hard way.
Joe the plumber had the right to speak freely, he exercised that right, and nobody did anything to restrain him or to prevent him having plenty of media exposure where he was positively encouraged to go into great detail about his beliefs.
He got a massive audience for his speech, which is way more than the First Amendment guarantees.
So there were bad consequences? Too bad. The First Amendment says nothing, nothing at all, about the consequences of exercising your right. All it says is that Congress can't make any laws taking that right away.
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: (Score:2)
>It's only in the last two years or so, with Obama rising, that the oppressive feeling has left.
Explain this.
Seriously, the "Bush is bad, Obama is good!" chanting reminds me too much of animal farm.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (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
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, 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?
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 of
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)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's only a felony if it is determined that what he was told not to reveal was legal.
False.
That's in the godam Uniform Code of Military Justice fer gawdsakes.
Since this has nothing to do with the military, and hence nothing to do with the UCMJ, I wonder why you think that's relevant. And even then you're still wrong: blowing the whistle on illegal activity is a defense in trial. It is not a defense against being prosecuted, or against charges being filed.
He believed he WAS defending the constitution!
And he can present evidence to that effect at trial. This is how the legal system works.
Now, I am not saying he should be prosecuted: that is up to the discretion of the U.S. Attorney and so on. If the
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.
The FBI oath of Office (Score:5, Informative)
I will support and defend the Constitution of the
United States against all enemies, foreign and
domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to
the same; that I take this obligation freely, without
any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that
I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the
office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
'Nuff said. Still, it sucks to see Slashdot staff drinking the FBI's "National Security" kool-aid. He did what he believed was the right thing, and that was to call attention to illegal activity within the intelligence services.
Now let's say, in the near-too-distant future, that the United States becomes a full-blown dystopia and Slashdot's still around:
Would you, Pudge, help the feds round up all of the Slashdotters who have been known to post subversive opinion? Would you receive satisfaction from the doggie bones and pats on the head? Or maybe you're just making deals with the devil because you want that DUI expunged or you have a few foreign-born relatives you want to bring in...who knows?
Re: (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
Re: (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
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)
>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: (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: (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: (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 whil
Re: (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: (Score:3, Informative)
Let me connect the dots so your perl-addled brain might understand why people are modding you down:
The mood of post-9/11 America was paranoid and xenophobic.
The government reflected that mood, and even acted to fan the flames for its own purposes.
Historical precedence and human nature are more than adequate reasons to be fearful of it in this state.
In that political climate, it is very plausible that an immigrations official might abuse his authority to deny citizenship based on the applicant's perceived lo
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
slashdot is a place where people come for paranoid conjecture that affirms their beliefs, dont be too surprised.
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.
Agent Lawless? (Score:5, Funny)
Nope (Score:2)
Think we all did :-)
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.
Tamm's sister River (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, I think the irony is the name "Justice Department".
"apparently looking for clues about his motivation (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
From reading the article, there is a question as to his motivations. Apparently he had been very uncomfortable with the administrations push for capital punishment, and so its supposed that he may have had a political axe to grind, and that this may have muddied his judgement on how to proceed.
Basically my interpretation is that if he hadn't had other motivations as well, he may have tried more to go through legal means to do something about the program before contacting the press. The fact that he was ve
Re: (Score:2)
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:One Day (Score:5, Insightful)
Agent Lawless (Score:2)
Agent Lawless, a former prosecutor from Tennessee...
Most ironic... name... ever...
I'm sure he never got ridiculed for that name from other students while studying for his law degree. (Yeah, I read the story earlier about sarcasm [slashdot.org])
Re: (Score:2)
I hear that. I knew a guy who was in law school whose name was Case Collard. Great name for a lawyer/investigator.
Motives for going to the press? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
No no! Today's definition of "Patriotism" is letting the government give you the shaft and saying "Thank you." Well, at least if you believe those that say they support the president no matter what.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget to wear your flag pin. Can't be a patriot without that pin.
Re: (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, a
Agent Lawless? (Score:2)
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?
Content minus crud (Score:4, Informative)
Print link [newsweek.com].
And a damned interesting read, no matter your political stripe.
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: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: (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
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Public beating. mob justice. (Score:3, Interesting)
disobedience. this is what such a government deserves.
this is what had happened in 1774.
Tamm's legal defense fund (Score:5, Informative)
Bank of Georgetown
5236 44th Street
Washington, DC 20015
Everyone who cares about freedom in the US should chip in. I'm going to (despite being quite strapped at the moment).
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!
He's a hero (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
I couldn't quite find a car analogy.... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Its my understanding that SCI is lateral to Top Secret, not above. Can anyone refute my claim or substantiate the authors?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._security_clearance_terms [wikipedia.org]
Re:Time to Play (Score:4, Informative)
You don't think it's Jason Wesley Lawless of 43164 Crosswind Ter. Broadlands, VA 20148, born 12/31/1972 (birthday's coming up), at (571) 333-3347, do you?
It seems awfully stupid to go after a guy that the majority of Americans will end up calling a patriot when you haven't gone so far as to have an unlisted number. That said, there was a Jason W. Lawless, ADA, in Tennessee [state.tn.us], and the Jason W. Lawless in Broadlands (DC suburb) did live in Nashville before. No doubt members of the press already know how to contact him...
Re: (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 you