FBI Raids Home of Suspected NSA Leaker 608
During the hours that Congress was debating codifying the Bush administration's wiretapping by revising the FISA law, the Department of Justice was raiding the home of former Justice official Thomas M. Tamm to identify the person who first brought the illicit program to light: "The agents seized Tamm's desktop computer, two of his children's laptops and a cache of personal files... the raid was related to a Justice criminal probe into who leaked details of the warrantless eavesdropping program to the news media... James X. Dempsey of the Center for Democracy and Technology said the raid was 'amazing' and shows the administration's misplaced priorities: using FBI agents to track down leakers instead of processing intel warrants to close the [purported surveillance] gaps."
Re:Let me correct that last sentence for you: (Score:4, Insightful)
Actions like these distinguish the system (Score:5, Insightful)
Saying that "The State" is right no matter what, is fascist. Currently the government is purging or minimalizing the non-fascist elements within the state. Of course they're doing it on the path of least resistance, so they're keeping up the veil of the justice system, but with the swampy legal system, far reaching laws and by simply ignoring basic rights (habeas corpus, etc.), without means to challenge the state it is a mere facade.
Re:Actions like these distinguish the system (Score:2, Insightful)
An American Episode of Russian Fascism (Score:5, Insightful)
Without the leaker, we -- the American public -- would still be in the dark. Without the leaker, our government would still be conducting warrantless wiretapping. The leaker actually helped to strengthen our democracy. He did not endanger it.
Yet, why is Washington trying to send the leaker to federal prison? This massive raid by the FBI smacks of Russian-style fascism.
Rebuilding America will take longer than that (Score:5, Insightful)
and getting states, banks, credit companies, airlines, etc. to do massive data collection. And it's not like it started with them - the FBI wiretap enthusiasts like Louis Freeh, the NSA anti-public-crypto people, the Echelon project, etc. all date to the Clinton or GHWBush/Reagan administrations or earlier.
It's going to take a *long* time to tear down that stuff and turn this back into America again, and most of that won't happen unless we replace the current Executive Branch with one that's actually committed to doing it. Most of the major candidates aren't talking like that - certainly Hillary and Rudy and John Edwards and McCain and Romney don't have a history of wanting to do that, and you're pretty much down to Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul before you'd get to anybody who'd talk about that kind of concept as a campaign strategy. Perhaps if the Democrats not only win the White House but also increase their control of the Senate and House they'll have some willingness to do that after a couple of years.
For now, though, Homeland Security Anonymous Spokescritters report that Enhanced Terrorist Surveillance Program has been reporting increased frequency of terrorist chatter saying "Booga Booga", so if you're even suggesting that we decrease wiretapping then you're a threat to national security and our precious bodily fluids.
Re:Let's see... (Score:3, Insightful)
But Bush isn't even *attempting* to use his power, or your money, for anything beneficial to the USA. He is actively using our country's resources to harm the US, for ideological and political reasons.
Hillary might use your tax money to do the wrong sort of good. Bush is using it to do harm.
Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why prosecute? (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, that was an extreme example. But it would be a situation that would leave one person wronged - your sister. Warrantless wiretaps left countless people wronged and in ways we will never know.
By your logic - the government can do whatever it wants whenever it wants and call it classified and if anyone talks about it they go to jail. That would be something that Saddaam would have done. Or Hitler.
Re:Objectivity? (Score:2, Insightful)
Sense of perspective (Score:1, Insightful)
What will they find ... (Score:5, Insightful)
The purpose of the raid is as much to deter others who are thinking of exposing government wrongdoing as it is to punnish Mr Tamm.
Re:Sense of perspective (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Actions like these distinguish the system (Score:1, Insightful)
Not getting into the right or wrong of the program, when it was first broke to the public, it was divulged that only people talking to suspected terrorist when one of the parties to the conversation are outside the country and that the inteligence commity in congress knew about it. On the internet, people make it sound like Bush is interested in How aunt tilley makes chocolate chip cookies or how uncle ralph got a hole in one at the charity golf outing. The vast majority of people I know of only know the official version of listening in on people talking to terrorist so they think it is fine.
Another problem is how people blow this out of scale and then react to non believers. They almost go to the point of stating that they should be able to talk to terrorist in the phone without fear of being listened in on by the government. Then when someone disagrees, they get criticized because for not bashing bush enough. It appears that the opposition to the program are just a repeat of the attacks on clinton in the 90's where the other side is crying and grasping for everything they can. They end up with the impression that it is a witch hunt. I side with them on that and do get the same impressions. I also don't see a problem with listening to Americans talking to terrorist in the phone when they killed 3000+ people with one organized plot. It may be giving up a right, but I'm not sure that plotting a terrorist attack free from government attempts to find out about it is a right we should hold dear.
"Enabling Act of 1933" would be the Patriot Act (Score:2, Insightful)
The systematic placement of Bush cronies throughout the government was the like the period 1933-37.
The extension of the 'Enabling act' twice corresponds to the extending of the Patriot act.
The burning down of the Reichstag, is the burning of the twin towers.
So far we haven't (thank god) had a night of the long knives where opponents were executed in extra judicial killings.
But we have had a build up of weapons to control a US populace, the Homeland Security's 'Puke Ray' and the Microwave burn ray.
Happens everywhere (Score:5, Insightful)
However, there is a difference between the US and the UK. The last time the Met became really corrupt, the Hertfordshire Police Force was called in to investigate them. (Disclaimer: Guess where I grew up.) Even so, it happened, and a significant number of Met officers were exposed. This is one example of why separate and independent police forces with local rather that national accoujntability are such a good idea.
The problem is, who will investigate the FBI? That seems to be the fundamental weakness of the US system. In the UK, MI5 and MI6 have no powers of arrest. They have to get in regular police to arrest suspects. Although clunky, this provides a check and balance. If the FBI is corrupted or ordered by the Administration to do corrupt things, who is to stop them?
Re:Let me correct that last sentence for you: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Actions like these distinguish the system (Score:1, Insightful)
It's not the fact that people should be able to speak to terrorists without being overheard.
The problem is that it de facto creates an anti-democratic state within a state.
It can't be controlled, and can't be managed by a democratic state.
Simply putting organisations and people on a terrorist list, makes them criminals lacking legal support.
It can not be controlled because of the 'national security issues'involved.
The fact that some people deny this makes them naive at best.
Re:Actions like these distinguish the system (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't think fascist regimes come to existance through coup d'etats or civil wars, like many communist regimes did. Most of them grew from a combination of a flawed democratic process and fear in the population that a civil war or anarchy is imminent, and the general feeling, especially in the leading classes, that a fascist regime is still better than the uncertainty of an absence of government.
Re:Wow (Score:4, Insightful)
Were you also against any investigation into the Valerie Plame leak?
Re:Actions like these distinguish the system (Score:5, Insightful)
And I doubt this is a good thing.
Re:Actions like these distinguish the system (Score:3, Insightful)
And the legality of the program is still a little in question. There are arguments on both sides. Also, this isn't the first time something like this going after the leaker has happened. A cop/court worker even lost his whistle blowing retaliation case in CA when he informed the defendant in a case about information that could of helped him in his defense and was punished, denied promotion and transfered to a shit job.
Good or not, this isn't anything exactly new. It might be new to you and I understand being shocked when you first find out the world isn't the way you thought it was, but a lot of the rest of us has seen it all before and might be a little numb to it.
Re:Actions like these distinguish the system (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Actions like these distinguish the system (Score:5, Insightful)
I would recommend extreme care on the next elections.
Remember "checks and balances". You need a whole lot more of them.
Re:Actions like these distinguish the system (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that's one reason why the current government gets away with so much. To an outside observer, especially from a northern European democracy, it seems really amazing that there's isn't more of a backlash, especially in the media. Even my father, whose a very mild-mannered man commented on the Scooter Libby pardon, sorry, 'commute', 'it's like it's some kind of a banana republic!'
Then again, there is the apathy. And the money. But I really do think that the two-party system and the mentality it brings is hurting the country.
Re:Let me correct that last sentence for you: (Score:1, Insightful)
Jawohl mein Führer.
Re:Actions like these distinguish the system (Score:2, Insightful)
Hmm... like, say, a democratic process, where the main determining factor in getting elected is the amount of money you can raise by pandering to giant corporations and a fear that is played up and nurtured by those in power to justify extraordinary means? Backed with, say, talk of a war against an evil enemy spiced with calls for patriotism?
Sounds strangely familiar... not that I'd be one to draw hasty comparisons or claim analogy, though.
Before the hyperventilation gets too out of hand.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Let me correct that last sentence for you: (Score:2, Insightful)
The interesting thing about that is that no people (meaning subject class) has ever been vigilant enough to stop the expansion of centralized power (measured both in revenue and power over the people). Judging by history, the natural course of every government is to expand in both power and revenue over its lifetime. No government has ever significantly and permanently reduced its power or revenue through the process of democracy! (If someone can point to an actual historical example of this, I'd be very interested.) Wouldn't reduction of power -- or at least a halt to expansion of power -- be the result of vigilance?
My point is that, not only is vigilance not enough to stop the growth of government today -- judging by history it never has been enough. Power is, after all, power: the special right to employ coercion as the means, as all governments rely on by definition. How can vigilance compete against that?
In fact, I'm almost tempted to say that vigilance (meaning the ability to put a stop to the continuous centralization and consolidation of power) is next to impossible, given the natural course of every government which is consolidation of power.
Do I have a solution to any of this? Of course not -- but that doesn't mean we shouldn't pay close attention to the true nature of power, those who desire it, and how they employ it.
Re:Why prosecute? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Let Me Rephrase This To The Bush Haters (Score:5, Insightful)
If you think /. is far left that probably means you're so far out in right field you can't see the game anymore. Let go of the partisan outlook a little bit, eh?
Slashdot has a heavy libertarian bias, particularly on social issues, and isn't particularly well represented by either mainstream party. The wannabe-fascist trend in the Republican party lately has made them particularly reviled here, but there's little love for the Democrats, especially their ties to the entertainment industry. If we have a Democrat president, expect /. bitching about the RIAA and MPAA to increase even beyond its already prodigious levels. On the other hand, the fact that Hillary is actually a viable presidential candidate is probably Bush's fault, too. ;)
Besides, honestly now. Slashdot? Not complaining about politics? Madness!
Re:What's the solution? Depends ... (Score:2, Insightful)
"just check the threats that are actually coming in across the news"
The biggest threats are internal - in this case, the people running the White House. They have done exactly what the terrorists wanted. Bush had it right for once, when he first said "Go about your daily lives, otherwise the terrorists have won." But look what he's done since. The constitution is a "piece of paper" that just "gets in the way," "posse commitas" is forgotten, and most of what is done is just "security theatre".
It would have been better to have Bush in the White House stoned on coke and booze continuously, rather than getting intoxicated on raw power.
Re:Let Me Rephrase This To The Bush Haters (Score:2, Insightful)
Even those in the military chain-of-command are obligated to refuse to obey unlawful orders. Executive abuse in the name of national security is illegal -- even the Roman Republic only gave their dictators free reign for renewable one-year periods.
Re:Let me correct that last sentence for you: (Score:3, Insightful)
Makes me wonder why someone who leaks info in favor of Bush gets a pardon...
Re:Actions like these distinguish the system (Score:4, Insightful)
There is nothing more incensing to me than to watch the various political ads preceding any election as it becomes quite apparent how truly stupid the candidate(s) believe the voting public to be (heck I guess it's working, so they must be partly right). Being able to swing votes your way by trying to convince the public that your opponent is in huge favor and would prefer to kill babies (for example) is the type of "mudslinging" and polarizing ideas that get presented in these advertisements. It's unfortunate that a lot of the voters don't realize that they're being manipulated by allowing their personal religious beliefs to cloud their thinking and are putting WAY too much trust into people who would stoop to that level.
I would love to see the expulsion of the Electoral College, and I'd love to see some serious reform for campaign advertisement and debates. I'd prefer a much more level playing field. I'd like to see a situation where these things are controlled so that a grass-roots candidate is able to have the same visibility as a veteran of "the game". The elections shouldn't come down to essentially who has the most money to spend on advertising and who can hire the best "muckrakers" to dig up crap about their opponent(s), it should come down to who comes the closest to what everyone wants. I concede that if this ever happens, we'll have to listen to some real whacko's, but I'd much rather sit through a ridiculous speech of impossible campaign promises from some "nobody" than I would from 2 or 3 "somebodys" realizing that I HAVE to choose one of the 2-3.
Re:Let me correct that last sentence for you: (Score:5, Insightful)
It's actually worse than that. Ideally, the people should have a kind of public virtue, and virtue, as Aristotle teaches, lies in moderation. Democracy doesn't work when the people hate the government, nor does it work when they are infatuated with it. Accountability is the midpoint between paranoia and automatic trust. The government shouldn't do everything, but what it does, it should do robustly: if you stare the beast, you don't end up with good government, you end up with a ravenous beast.
People ought to be involved in government, but not to the point where it becomes an instrument of their irrational passions. And human nature being inconsistent as it is, it is quite possible to be apathetic, angry, fearful and infatuated all at the same it.
Re:Actions like these distinguish the system (Score:3, Insightful)
If I were you, I wouldn't expect any miracles to happen within the next few years, regardless of who is in the White House.
Re:It's all a setup (Score:2, Insightful)
A judge recently ruled that if two guys are talking to each other and both are physically in Pakistan, but the call passes through the US in route from jihadi A and jihadi B then a FISA warrant is required. That is why FISA was ridiculously irrelevant and needed to be overhauled. Don't listen to people on slashdot. They're idiots and 95% don't have a clue what they're talking about. All of the 8th-grader conspiracy, fascism, blah blah talk may be "fun" for the... er... "intellectually incurious" on these forums, but in reality there's nothing sinister about this. It's common sense stuff.
You say tom-mae-to, I say to-mat-o (Score:3, Insightful)
I understand that, of late, the game is rigged on
But I honestly wonder how much of this response is based on what we think of as being "right". This guy was right because he exposed an "illegal" program. He narked on a program we don't like, therefore he is a hero.
But who is to determine what an illegal program is? Should each federal employee sworn to secrecy decide on his own whether something is legal or illegal?
I can hear the "heck yeah!" calls right now. You will say it was obvious that it was illegal. He had a moral duty to leak.
The problem with these moral arguments is that one can always take another tack -- perhaps it was legal. Or rather, perhaps it was illegal, but known to all branches of the government, which was working to make it legal. Or perhaps it was legal all along. The way we figure out whether something is legal or not is we have a charge, we have a trial, and we have a verdict.
If the employee sued the government for illegal acts (using the FISA court), then I would agree he was acting on his morals. But to hide behind anonymity, make his own decision for the entire country, and then claim to he a hero? Heck no. I will not condone such actions, EVEN if they are for a greater good. If we can't keep secrets, we're screwed. End of story. I'd rather have illegal acts by a country that has dedicated public servants, than each servant deciding on his own whether he likes a program or not.
This is the problem with the highly-charged partisan BS we have going on. It's not just that Bush had a program, it's that it was BUSH. Heck -- he's like the devil or something. We must stop him before he gets to the children! In an atmosphere like that, each side plays to the public servants to do the "moral" thing. The system just won't work like that, guys. We got a lot more problems than one president or program going on here.
Re:Well, finally. (Score:3, Insightful)
That is why you as a Republican should be worried about it. Hillary is going to get in, and you want her to have the same sort of powers Bush is exercising ?
Re:Let Me Rephrase This To The Bush Haters (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Why we need the NSA (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Phew! (Score:2, Insightful)
Fixed it for you.
There is a reason that one of the charges that Scooter Libby was charged and convicted on was 'Obstruction of Justice'.
Re:What's the solution? Depends ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Bullshit. There's no need for the government to violate the Constitution to "protect" us, either in warrentless eavesdropping, or in attempting to silence those who would talk about it.
Terrorism is a simple form of criminality that predates the founding of the U.S. and the establishment of our Constitution [wikipedia.org]. It's not something new and unique in human experience that requires us to shred the law in order to be "protected".
There is no Constitutionl authority to declare certain facts "classified". Indeed, under the common law, every citizen has the duty to raise a "hue and cry" if they witness a crime [wikipedia.org], and warrentless eavesdropping is a crime; at the very least, silence would have make the leaker an accessory. The leaker is a hero, not a criminal.
Are there bad guys out there who want to commit acts of murder, both individual and mass? Yes. Is keeping an eye on them, trying to intercept them before they can do it, a good idea? Absolutely. Is there a legal way to do it, to provide some (though not absolute) assurance that this won't be misused? Sure - GET A FUCKING WARRANT .
Not civil disobedience (Score:3, Insightful)
The only difference was he released information damning to the government. This is just one more bit of evidence that the government of the United States believes it is above the law, above the constitution, and above the best interest of the citizens they have sworn to serve.
The administration is getting back at him, just like they did Joseph Wilson. This is pure vindictiveness.
What a pack of crap. People need to know. (Score:3, Insightful)
At the time, Gonzo tried to justify the program in a similar but more direct way,
and it's complete bullshit. Actual terrorists know that FISA can authorize wiretaps though a secret court and that their communications may be monitored without any public record. No information of use was gained by them learning the court was bypassed by a corrupt administration. Harm was only done to the administration and the backlash is purely political. What the administration is doing is both illegal and immoral. The only reason for them to bypass the already friendly FISA court is to spy on political opposition. FISA has given them all they might need for legitimate terrorist hunting and is dangerous enough on it's own. Domestic spying is Orwellian, unconstitutional and deeply unAmerican - it's opponents are patriots.
Re:Actions like these distinguish the system (Score:2, Insightful)
- Thomas Jefferson
Liberty costs. It's nice to know that America still has people willing to pay the price to fight tyrrany. Assuming he's the leaker, he weighed the risks and made his choice.
Which leakers are the problem? (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, I'm all for using FBI agents to track down people that leak information. There was recently someone that leaked the name of a covert operative to the media in a time of war. Based on the timing and the identity of the person exposed, it appeared to be politically motivated. Please use the FBI to track down things like that. However, for someone that exposes an illegal government activity, knowing that the whistle blowing protections are really honey pots, what are they expecting to do with him? Have the FBI track him down to give him a medal? He did what the FBI should have been doing.
Re:Let Me Rephrase This To The Bush Haters (Score:3, Insightful)
Or possibly could you mean "christian values" or something similar? (Just for edification, religion and politics aren't supposed to mix in the USA.)
I'll agree that slashdot readers seem to be liberal, but I wouldn't say "far left" or "radical left" in the slightest. As you suggest the poles make the opposite seem even further from center, when in reality it seems there's actually a fairly mixed bag. You seem to be "far right" while others seem to be "far left". Most of us, however, see both sides fairly reasonably and recognize them for what they are; two heads of the same beast.
As for the rest of your flame and it's anti-muslim sentiment, I'll just suggest that some folks view the same issue for the US and the "Fundamental Christian" movement.