Slashdot Mirror
FBI Raids Home of Suspected NSA Leaker
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."
James X. Dempsey of the Center for Democracy and Technology said the raid was 'typical' of the administration's misplaced priorities: using any government branch to track down anyone they percieve as disloyal instead of processing intel warrants to close the [purported surveillance] gaps."
Fuckers. Its not enough for them to lose the election. We should be seeing jail time for this sort of overreaching corruption.
The problem with this disclosure is that it involves release of "communications intelligence activities", and that is covered by 18 U.S.C. 798(a)(3). And to make matters more interesting, it is quite easy to make the statute apply to the newspapers that first broke the story:
(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information--
(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
No need. Merely read the Constitution. Its in there in black and white that this is illegal.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
two words...
On the contrary, Mussolini defined it rather well. He actually wrote the entry on fascism for the "Encyclopaedia Italiana" in 1932. Others have used it widely and innappropriately since then, but that doesn't change its true meaning. Here's a small excerpt from Mussolini's entry that gives some context:
... fascism combats the whole complex system of democratic ideology, and repudiates it, whether in its theoretical premises or in its practical application. Fascism denies that the majority, by the simple fact that it is a majority, can direct human society ...
The entire entry, titled "What is Fascism?", is available online in a myriad of places. It is somewhat lengthy, but I suggest reading it in its entirety.
As for this situation, and the GP's label, I would say that it fits rather nicely Mussolini's definition.
"We may face a scorched and lifeless earth, but they're accountable to their shareholders first."
See: H Amdt 674. He voted to prevent the federal government from enforcing federal anti-drug laws which conflicted with state laws.
I don't see how you could possibly consider him a neo-con. He's clearly an honest conservative. He's strongly against being in Iraq. He voted against the homeland security act and the patriot act. He voted in favor of the whistleblower protection act of 2007.
He's consistent. He voted against an act to prohibit cloning while at the same time voting against anything that would fund cloning. He's just against federal power.
Remember that it's all too easy for the federal government to gain more power. It's near impossible to force them to lose any power. If Ron Paul causes the federal government to give too much power back to the states then rest assured that future presidents will pull it back. But we should be grateful for any reprieve from the constant power grabbing that's going on in DC right now.
You can see his entire voting record at: Ron Paul voting record.
Cow Cube
Radio 4 interviewed the man who exposed the situation in Abu Graib, it was on the radio this morning so you can listen to it online. http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/thechoice/
...) and so the whole family had to get moved to another part of the country and set up with new lives. Seems like most of his fellow soldiers supported what he did - which is nice to know given the bad publicity the US military normally gets, but enough hometown neighbours considered him a traitor to mean he had to have the upheaval to ensure the safety of his family. A subtle hint from Rumsfeld?
30 minutes, nice broadcast. Sounds like he's getting support from the US government but Rumsfeld screwed his whole life up by announcing his name to the world. People harassed his wife and his wife's sister (apparently they couldn't spell Iraq right when they graffitti'd her house, spelling it "Iroc"
A fraction of the Muslim world wants us dead. Period. They've been blowing up a handful of people and a boatload of innocent bystanders (many times, Muslims as well) JUST because they're American or Jewish, for nearly half a century. See the Kobar Towers (sp?), see Beruit, see Bali, and hundreds of other places where the crime was being in a place where radicle Muslims could reach a detonator. Let's also not forget that 9/11 was _before_ we continued the war against Saddam, which was halted in a ceasefire, not victory. Then the ceasefire was breached 492 times by Saddam firing at the aircraft enforcing the no-fly zone.
I've been saying for a long time that there is no such thing as middle east peace. It won't happen - period. I don't know why politicians waste their time and our tax dollars on it. No one over there wants peace. They just want the destruction of everyone but themselves, even within the muslim factions. They want to kill other muslims. Islam is about peace?? Give me a F@#$ing break! Iraq should tell you somthing there. You have Suni's and Sheite's killing each other with the kurds on the side. In Afganastan you have the Taliban and all the other muslim tribes fighting each other. But Islam is about peace.... My thought has been lets just turn the whole middle east into a giant glass factory. It would solve a lot of their problems and ours faster than wasting time on "middle east peace". At least it would be realistic.
Just remember - if your from the U.S. - I may not like what you say and you may not like what I say, but we have to defend each others RIGHT to say it.
The Truth is a Virus!!!
"Read these eye witness accounts reported by the BBC and decide for your self."
You really haven't been paying attention have you? Notice that both of these articles are from the first day of the shooting, where the media was full of misinformation. Both of the articles you list are full of "facts" that are now heavily disputed and is completely at odds with the findings of the independent police complaints commission.
See the Wikipedia article or this article in the Torygraph.
1. De Menezes was wearing a light denim jacket.
2. He was given no warning that an innocent man could understand. From the IPCC commissioner: "There is no action he could have consciously taken that would have saved him".
3. De Menezes passed through the barrier normally using his pre-paid Oyster card. He did not run or jump the barrier as some eyewitnesses had claimed.
> It was crucial that the forerunner of the NSA break
> the codes of the Enigma cryptographic machine.
What are you babbling about? The US had nothing to do
with trying to break the various Enigma ciphers; that
work was done at Bletchley Park, in the UK, primarily
based around British, French and Polich cryptanalysis
techniques.
It is true that US forces seized many key lists which
allowed monitoring of messages produced by particular
Enigma variants for fixed periods of time, but that is
far removed from cryptanalysing the cipher.
Stop watching Hollywood renditions of WW2 and learn some
real history. Th
Tell that to Valerie's husband who introduced her at parties as "works @ the CIA."
She was never field personnel. Get the facts.
I'm not sure what makes you think Constitutional rights don't apply to military members, but I'll promise you you're wrong. There are some limitations, but they are the same as most employers' limits on their employees (IE you can't associate your company with your own political opinion etc etc.)
The military has a few extensions on their limitations due to UCMJ but all members of the US military still retain their constitutional rights.
As for your comments about ignoring commands, that is specifically against the UCMJ so it's unlikely to happen unless there were a complete military coup. In which case, there are so many checks and balances against that happening, it's a seriously unlikely scenario. And each member of congress, the President, Vice-President and all members of the military swear an oath. that oath is to the Constitution of the United States, no one else. I'd like to see more people in those positions remembering their oaths and acting accordingly.
So whether he broke a law or not, the leaker was definitely upholding the Constitution, which is, in theory, the highest law we have in this country. He therefore did his duty to uphold the constitution (though he likely didn't take such an oath) and was far more "in the right" than if he had kept quiet about it. There are also "whistle blower" laws to protect him and his family in just such an event. Why is the current administration not extending him the courtesy of these laws I wonder?
When a company, any company is breaking the law in their business practices, it is an employees duty to report that company. So how do you get around the "illegal" disclosure of an illegal act? You accept the possible consequences, knowing that in the end you did what was right, whether it was legal or not.
"Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
Uhm... the bills signed into law determine what is "legal" and "illegal." Something isn't legal just because the president says it is.
There were laws put in place regulating surveillance. These laws are very clear in what is allowed, and what is not. This program completely ignored those laws, and sidestepped the oversight mandated by those laws. There are laws regulating what can and cannot be secret. This program fell outside the bounds of all those established laws.
It isn't partisan BS. This is between those who believe the US is based on the Constitution, and those who believe the President should hold powers above all others.
And public servants should do the "moral" thing in any administration, even the nicest, bunny-loving, thriving economy, no-war-abroad President. We should all do the moral thing, including monitoring the activities of the government (including the President), and holding them to a higher standard of ethics. They are, after all, representing all of us. Their actions reflect our own morality by proxy.
This is only a partisan issue because the PR has spun it into a partisan issue. If this had happened during the Clinton years, those who defend the current president would've been at the head of the lynch mob. Let's stop caring to which party these immoral, selfish sons-of-bitches belong, and start holding them all accountable.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Um - you've been listening in on so many rightwing strawman attacks, I think a herd of cattle decided to bed down in your eardrum, and has filled your skull with cow shit.
What you are calling "The left" does back the respect of other cultures.
But if you think that means that the same political movement that fought for a womans right to vote in this country, wants a far-right fascist religious culture that treats its women like cattle, then you're grossly mistaken.
It's a strawman attack. And a retarded one, at that.
There is no liberal who supports Sharia law, or wants "Radical Islam" to take over the West.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.