To The Maximum Extent of the Law [Reader Post]

The problem with having a jury of his peers i.e. other federal prosecutors, is that there are so many like-minded people in the justice department. It would be like trying a democrat in Washington, DC. He would get off no matter what the evidence is. A republican would be convicted no matter if their was no real evidence (Scooter Libby). Isn’t it sad that there is no real justice in this world? That justice is according what letter is behind your name. But, yes, he should be prosecuted. Some way should be found to do this fairly to all. If he gets off with no punishment traitors will take that as carte blanche to do whatever treason they want.

you said

Seems like a rather clear situation to this former holder of a high level security clearance.

i hold a Nato Secret and always will unless the government decides i broke my part of the bargain. unless you have had it taken away you still have your security clearance.

I say, “Slam the book on him.” Just like Martha Stewart held a broker’s license when she engaged in insider trading, this jerk wad has a law license, actually was a former prosecuter, knew full well what the law was and used it against people before, and fully should reap ALL the penalties afforded by the law for revealing national secrets, especially since there was no law broken by those who were his target. I believe he should be tossed in a deep hole in Leavenworth, and forgot about.

Given that Tamm’s reasons for leaking had nothing to do with “The Public Good” and more to do with screwing the administration, I say send him to Gitmo.

“It would be like trying a democrat in Washington, DC. He would get off no matter what the evidence is. A republican would be convicted no matter if their was no real evidence (Scooter Libby).” (Barbara S)

Yeap! You are right. And why would that be? I have been thinking about this for a while. I came to the conclusion that the word “Democrat” and “liberal” are misleading. Word matters.

“Democrats” comes from the word “democratic”. So people think that Democrats have to be democratic, which supposes: almost perfect. “Liberals” comes from the word “liberty”. So Liberals thinks they are for freedom. These two words are very confusing and misleading. Hell, everyone wants to be for freedom and democracy, so they think that being a liberal Democrat is COOL. WRONG, because these two words are far away from what they are supposed to mean.

THE SOLUTION? Change these two words. Instead of saying “liberal”, just say LEFTIST. And change the name of the Democratic Party who is everything but democratic. Find another name for it. Like the “Corrupted Party” for instance would be more representative.

As for the word “conservative”, it doesn’t sounds good… it looks like people with old mentalities who are to stubborn to change their views. I would just call them “people with values”. The name of the “Republican Party” is OK, since you are a Republic, that means that this Party is really for your country. Just don’t juxtapose it with the word conservative, that doesn’t sound good to the idiots.

Wow wardouche, you need anti-psychotic meds something fierce.

I don’t want ANY President to have the ability to decide what “the law” “is” as it pertains to their actions. Just covering some things with a security clearance does negate the 4th Amendment.

This was Warrantless wiretapping. ILLEGAL!!! He is a HERO for bringing it to the public eye. Anytime our government officials see themselves as above the law (as the bush administration did in this case) It needs to be revealed by someone! I applaud this man for having the courage to stand up and do what was right!

What about suspected terrorists calling into the US do you believe is *not* apt probably cause. The regulations give the affirmation, and the description of phone communications.

So why, blast, did you *stop* reading at “reasonable”?

Intellience Gathering, prior to the Church Committee and the FIS Act were entirely the province of the Executive Branch of Government.

The act was created to prevent 4th Amendment abuses that were happening at the time. It was and is the legal mechanism created for implementing the 4th Amendment (given our modern communications facilities) and the President is not above the law.

Until a United States Person is Prosecuted in Federal Court based on information gathered via monitoring of communications with a foreign terrorists, or unless doing so is viewed as a likely outcome of such interception, there is no requirement for a warrant

Did you just make that up?

“The President may authorize, through the Attorney General, electronic surveillance without a court order for the period of one year provided it is only for foreign intelligence information; targeting foreign powers as defined by 50 U.S.C. §1801(a)(1),(2),(3) or their agents; and there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party.”

NO SUBSTANTIAL LIKELIHOOD THAT THE SURVEILLANCE WILL ACQUIRE CONTENTS OF ANY COMMUNICATIONS TO WHICH A UNITED STATES PERSON IS A PARTY… that is for needing a warrant not “Until a United States Person is Prosecuted in Federal Court”

Any other issues you’re unclear on, Rodney?

My view is that if someone within the United States is communicating with identified foreign terrorists said communications should be monitored.

We agree on this. I just want the government to follow the law and respect the 4th Amendment.

If over the course of that monitoring it becomes evident that the party communicating from within the United States is a United States Person and the monitored communications rise to the level of a prosecutable offense, then a Warrant should be sought before the FIS Court and evidence collected via that warrant should be admissible in court.

The problem of allowing unfettered (without supervision) wired tapping, the instruments of government used for the eavesdropping could be used for other nefarious purposes. It would be nice to believe that those with these tools and power would solely use it to listen to terrorists as directed, but we have seen so many examples of abuse of power by government. Our founders could not see telephones and modern communication, but they did understand to give us the 4th Amendment to be certain that one branch of government could not do certain things without a check. So although we might agree on the spirit of what we must do (listen to terrorists etc), my belief is a process is needed to insure our long term rights are respected.

Let me give you an example. Lets say the program is totally secret and Obama operatives use the technology unfettered to listen in on some Republican politicians. Since there was no intervening step in the process, I believe that harm could be done to our freedom. That might be a bit of a stretch, but who knows who is being listened to and for what reason. I for one am not going to take a politician’s word. That is why the law is a better framework to operate. The liberal way the law is written now allows for the government so much flexibility already. What is the big deal about getting a warrant under the current system?

blast: You don’t know if they listened in on your communications. That is the problem, no checks and balances and accountability.

You think this is new??? You’ve never known if you’ve been listened to… even before FISA and Echelon. What you suggest is again, absurd, Blast. The laws do not allow the feds to listen to you without probable cause. The only way you’d know is if they hauled you into a court and charged you with something. And then you litigate in defense, and the evidence they present have to be admissible. Remember that Bill Ayers got off “guilty as sin and free as a bird” because of improper surveillance.

But to suggest you want the “security” of knowing you can never be listened to is impractical.

So why don’t you show us someone who has been successfully prosecuted with improper surveillance and intrustion of privacy… to back up your fears?

Now… I’ve got to go play snow shovel and see if I can get out of my driveway…. dang “global warming”.

Rod, I am saying you don’t have to compromise our rights to go after terrorists. That is a false compromise.

What say we reserve Warrants for the situations where we anticipate a prosecution of a United States Person.

Our government should never have the right to listen in to our calls without a warrant. It is fine for them to listen into foreign governments and foreign nationals as they like. The flexibility in the laws is more then adequate to meet their needs and preserve our constitutional rights. If they need more latitude then let them ask for it… so proper oversight can be applied.

What is so wrong about having a procedure in place to check the power we give to the government? Especially when that power has the potential for misuse and abuse.

Rod, yeah… “Lawfare” that old pesky notion of Constitutional protections and rule of law. The story you link to is an example of misinformation in my book. The courts have found that type of communication (both parties being in Iraq) is not covered by the FISA or 4th Amendment, no warrant would be required. Why the delay for a warrant or order from the AG is not really specified in the article but obviously they need to straighten out their management controls in the DOJ and DoD to prevent such delays.

Here is my belief. The government requires a warrant when monitoring communications of citizens in the US. Outside the US, foreign agents, or foreign governments, there is not such protection and let them listen in without warrants. The process to get a warrant in FISA can be retro active, so there never is a reason that they have to stop listening and and ignore potential leads.

You might feel all justified in your reasoning today, but what about when a different government is in power? How about when they decide that gun owners who complain and protest too much might be home grown terrorists? Can they just listen into their conversations because it suits them? I just feel giving power to the government without checks and oversight is dangerous.

Blast, abusing the legal system by shopping lawsuits for sympathetic judges may be legal, but disgusting. That is exactly what those suing on behalf of captured terrorists did.

The ACLU using just the cost of lawsuits to force cities and states to bend to their anti Christian beliefs is ok in your eyes? Your sarcastic response that it is ok or not abuse does not reflect well on you or your opinion.

blast: Check and balances are not only for legal recourse… the Constitution limits the power of the government and leaves other rights to the states and people. It is bad president to allow the government to just do what it wants and “only if” they want a prosecutable case to then get warrants.

Let’s try this again, blast. Congress passes bills, signed (or vetoed) into law by the POTUS. They act, with their limited knowledge, within what they believe is scope of the Constitution (or not…). Doesn’t matter. They write and pass the bills. The POTUS just signs ‘em, or not.

The admin branch enforces these laws, and has legal counsel (i.e. on this FISA bit) who interpret this law for the POTUS for specific actions he wants to take. If the legal counsel says “yup, you should be able to do this because…”, the POTUS does it.

If this action seems outside the law, the action is then challenged in court.

Welcome to checks and balances set up by our Founding Fathers. You can’t have the SCOTUS examining every bill passed and law enacted prior to signing into law. It can only be challenged.

Bush relied on his legal counsel. Courts ruled one way, so Congress came back in July and revised the FISA… and a new law amending FISA was enacted.

ACLU has greeted it immediately with another lawsuit.

Again, welcome to the US and our Constitutional checks and balances. I don’t know what more you want to satisfy yourself. You are not equipped to determine what is legal or illegal via letter of the law… that Congress wrote and passed. Only the judicial system can interpret the law with certainty.

Don’t like how Congress writes bills/laws? Get in line. Neither do I. So help send ‘em all home and let’s replace ‘em. Suits me.

So you’re just going to have to live with the system we got, and not the system you wish we had. Frankly, I think our set up is good. I just think the corruption in all three branches of power is very nerve racking.

MataHarley, listen, I have seen School House Rock and how a bill becomes law. Geez.

Ya know, blast… I actually give you credit that you *do*. But I’ll be darned if some of the things you type away at shake that confidence I attribute to you. Things like “Check and balances are not only for legal recourse…”

blast… when it comes to checks and balances for the first two branches, the third branch IS legal recourse. So perhaps it’s just a “failure to communicate”, eh?

Mata, do you think the government has a right to monitor communication between citizens of the USA (inside the USA) without a warrant.

blast, I haven’t read the latest incarnation of FISA since the summer. And even if I had, I am not part of the judicial system with a case in front of me. It’s judges that interpret the law… not your or I. So I don’t know how to answer your question on legal tecnicalities.

If you are speaking philosophically. I believe the government has the right to monitor communications between suspected terrorists and whomever they are calling. And I don’t care where the hell they are located… outside the US or inside. If they are on a suspected list…. go for it, IMHO. I want our intel to know who they are talking to, and about what.

Does this have the power to be abused? Hang yes. And frankly, I’m more worried about it under this POTUS than the last. But it all gets straightened out in a court of law – checks and balances, i.e. Wm Ayers – with probable cause. (hopefully) That’s all you can do. Corruption exists in govt, in the private sector, and thruout humanity.

If you are speaking philosophically. I believe the government has the right to monitor communications between suspected terrorists and whomever they are calling. And I don’t care where the hell they are located… outside the US or inside. If they are on a suspected list…. go for it, IMHO. I want our intel to know who they are talking to, and about what.

I am all for disrupting, tracking down and capturing or killing terrorists. One does not have to be “for the terrorists” to oppose big brother looking into our private lives here at home. To me it is a simple balance that we can afford to achieve, like getting a warrant if conversations are here in the USA. The law previously and now allowed government to begin listening and apply soon after and still keep it legal. I just want someone outside the Administration (Bush, now Obama) to review what is going on to keep things honest. FISA is not perfect, but it does place a decent construct for the 4th Amendment to be protected.

I used an analogy about a Reagan era law that was targeted to the use of automatic weapons in drug cases (war on drugs) those old laws are now being brought up to prosecute and persecute several former Marines and other former military who worked for Blackwater (as a contractor for the Dept of State). I know the analogy is a bit of a stretch, since there are not direct parallels to the Constitutional issues, but it points to an abuse of a law for the purpose of some government official.

Allowing the government to listen in on “terrorists” would open us up to any interpretation a sitting President and his administration saw fit. Maybe we (people who defend gun rights) might be the target of such eavesdropping? Who decides who is a terrorist and is on the list and what evidence is needed to be considered a terrorist? I just think it is a slippery slope to allow government so much power without checks on it, such as a judge and a warrant.

Rod

I don’t know you. All I know is what you post here which is manifestly uncaring towards the lives of our service members.

If you don’t like being called on the implications ramifications of your positions, a rational actor would proceed to reevaluate the positions. Or one could screech and curse like a typical libtard.

I think you are gross beyond compare to even claim a mantle of legitimacy by invoking the sacrifice of our men and women in arms. You have no shame. I read your essay on another site about being an American. You have no idea what it is to be an American outside of waving a flag and being bellicose in your claims. You are a pinhead ideologue who cannot see beyond his little manhood and instead has to cathect heros to legitimize your positions.

Rod, Furthermore, I have nothing to be ashamed of. Thomas Tamm violated his oath and the law. He should be prosecuted to the maximum extent of the law for having done so.

Those who would pursue a war via the courts are fools, poltroons, or worse. The protagonists and apologists for those policies have the blood of at least three servicemen on their figurative hands.

Well, ROD, If you had bother to read what I had written I never brought anything up about Tamm. My thesis is totally about presidential abuse of power in an abstract (mentioning Bush and Obama’s new administration in a non partisan way) and the fourth Amendment in particular. You have veered off to begin insulting and being intellectually dishonest by making statements like “I’m deeply saddened to see you value the lives of our servicemen so little.” and then restating it like “All I know is what you post here which is manifestly uncaring towards the lives of our service members.” which is a total load of crap. That vitriolic use of the honor of our troops is totally out of line and more people should denounce you using them for political purposes. The problem here in this blog is when there are disagreements with someone perceived to be “left” folks are silent to point out the hypocrisy. It is always a pile on mentality or be rude and claim to be more American than the next guy.

Also if you read my comments you would see my anger over the abuse of power by the government for prosecuting former military who work for Blackwater.

Maybe you want the federal government have unlimited power to listen in to phone conversations (and other means), I DON’T.

Rod, you continue to shamelessly bring up the troops as your cover in a pathetic way. You have no right to invoke their honor to suit your partisan view. You might not like the language I used as a reaction to your misappropriation of the honor of the troops, but I stand behind it, you are an asshole for both invoking them and not retracting your statement. Like I said before you have no shame.

I read the article and was not defending Tamm, I did not make one statement about him or his actions. So you need to pay attention and stop assuming, jumping to conclusions and going off have cocked. Unlike you, I am not going to make some sweeping judgment without knowing more of the facts. Oh, I forgot you are a know-it-all and don’t need all of the facts.

One last thing. It seems like sport for you to attempt to diminish me with your bogus claim about my feelings for our service men and women. Why try to sucker punch someone online with such a powerful statement as, “I don’t know you. All I know is what you post here which is manifestly uncaring towards the lives of our service members.” That seriously is about the lowest crap I have heard dished out online. I hope people who read your posts see how caviler you are by continuing to speak in that way.

mataharley, And since when is silence to be construed as support, or disgust? Just because some of us don’t want to step into other’s battles, do not be so presumptuous as to assume our opinions of those battles.

You are correct, I am a big boy and can speak for myself. I think a raw nerve was hit by Rod with the insinuation he made about my support for the troops.

I retract my assertion about about hypocrisy and apologize for making it.

Rod, you can find whatever you want reprehensible, but you are not the only one to wear the uniform. I gave my pound of flesh, I have buddies that did not come home, so don’t lecture me on support of the troops I served and did my duty. They are not only your brothers and sisters in arms.

MataHarley, your rant was warranted, so no harm no foul.

Rodney, enough already. Do you think the government should have closed down or revoked the FCC licenses of companies that released the Abu Grab photos? You know their first Amendment protections allowed them to release that scum and it cost American lives. Well, they didn’t because of the protection. Was it right to release it, no, but that is how our system works. And that case I believe actually can be connected to lives lost.

I don’t buy your argument about the endangering the troops with safeguards on the fourth Amendment. Maybe you trust the government to be honest brokers on all matters, but I don’t. While you are crusading to save lives, why not take guns away from people in the USA. There are many people killed with handguns etc, why not take them all away? Because we have the 2nd Amendment to protect us from the whims of any given leader. Maybe if they leaked Obama was listening in on “terrorist” groups in the USA and the groups were actually conservative political organizations you might change your mind.

Blast, he did not follow the proper whistle blower channels. He deserves to be prosecuted. Not to mention he decided on his own it was an illegal program–which was not his place or area of knowledge. There is NO excuse or justification for what he did. PERIOD. Your defense of him and “lawfare” is despicable.

Cute, but I’m not buying it. You ARE indirectly defending him. YOU are saying that the NSA surveillance was illegal. Therefore he did the right thing per your reasoning. Really, I have definitely lost some respect for you. You make post after post showing where you stand, then want me to belive you didn’t mean any of it. Let me make it clear to you, the NSA surveilance was NOT illegal. Tamm deserves to be prosecuted by what he himself has said.

You also defended lawfare with your sarcastic little response. Your ignorance on Lawfare is showing. Google Michael Ratner and Jon Eisenberg to learn something.