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."

Comments

What's the solution? Depends ...

[tomhudson]

"FBI Raids Home of Suspected NSA Leaker ".

Oops - NSA, not NASA.

(Will NASA diaper jokes ever go out of style? That too depends ... :-)

Re:What's the solution? Depends ...

[tomhudson]

"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:What's the solution? Depends ...

[doormat]

What threats? That a lady in San Diego with the cheese and ice packs? It was all a load of bullshit.

Your government, working to scare the shit out of you since 9/11.

Re:What's the solution? Depends ...

[Mr. Slippery]

how much of an impact the leaker (whomever it was) had on our work to protect ourselves, the which IS needed

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. 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, 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 .

Re:What's the solution? Depends ...

[cHiphead]

"specific, credible threats to the safety of Americans in America"

Kittens. And Republicans. But mostly kittens. mostly.

Let me correct that last sentence for you:

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Let me correct that last sentence for you:

[Unixfreak31]

While most of the people on slashdot will agree with you. And quite possiably others who are heavy into politics and keeping up with there goverment like they should. I think a big part of the problem is joe blow average doesnt keep up with what his/her goverment is doing for/to them. Untill people do the people in office will abuuse power the temptation is VERY hard to resisit. So if you want to change things like this talk with your neighbors and get people back into politics the people can make a change.

Re:Let me correct that last sentence for you:

[Anonymous Coward]

Thomas Jefferson would agree. We all need to educate our fellow citizens on the potentially dangerous directions in which our government is going. Frankly though it would be best if they came to these conclusions on their on. Which means we need to note the evidence without appearing to be a member of some fringe or nutcase element ourselves and ask their opinions in much the same way as polls are often done to present the cases the media, political parties or activists want to present. Of course they may object to the questions as being "leading".

All this could be quite a challenge, requiring you to develope communication and persuasive skillsets that might seem alien in connection with "geeks". These skillsets were once more common then they are now, people going into business for themselves was also more common previously too, now we are trained almost from birth to be accepting to what the media or government presents and to take our corporate job and be happy with it then go home to stay inside our air conditioned/centrally heated home and watch TV then go buy what the commercials tell us to. The internet has fought this a little bit, but look at all the new legislation they keep trying to use to control the internet and how corporate influences have tried to set in to make it their personal advertising and marketing tool.

You suggest talking to our neighbors, I hope they don't mind us interfering with their television shows, their internet usage, etc. Cause you are right, one of the major problems in the US today is we don't talk to our neighbors enough and educate each other in the process. We really do need to retake our government, neither party truely represents the people and both seek more power then they already have. The power should be with the people first and we have abdicated far too much to the government and allowed them, particularly the federal government to "steal" too much power, but honestly we were enablers in that regard by demanding more from our government we foolishly gave them the excuses to snag more power to pretend to attempt to accomplish our demands for education, health care, care for the elderly, and that illusionary, impossible to provide cradle to grave security.

I hope all of you have better luck with developing the skillsets I mentioned above then I have had so far.

"The more you read and observe about this Politics thing, you got to admit that each party is worse than the other. The one that's out always looks the best."

                Will Rogers, Illiterate Digest (1924), "Breaking into the Writing Game"

Re:Let me correct that last sentence for you:

[FunWithKnives]

That is the weakness of representative democracy. The people must be "eternally vigilant," just as Thomas Jefferson warned. As soon as the people become apathetic, and no longer care to be involved in the process, the process itself is then open to be usurped by the so-called "representatives." It really is not difficult to understand. So why is it being allowed to happen? Personally, I believe the answer lies in "Panem et Circenses."

Re:Let me correct that last sentence for you:

[joe_adk]

For those who don't know: Panem et Circense

Re:Let me correct that last sentence for you:

[Anonymous Coward]

The people must be "eternally vigilant"

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:Let me correct that last sentence for you:

[xENoLocO]

And therein lies the corruption in a two party system. *Everybody* should have to pencil in their party on their voters registration.

Makes me wonder why someone who leaks info in favor of Bush gets a pardon...

Re:Let me correct that last sentence for you:

[hey!]

As soon as the people become apathetic, and no longer care to be involved in the process, the process itself is then open to be usurped by the so-called "representatives."

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:Let me correct that last sentence for you:

[HunterZ]

Personally I don't think it's a problem of vigilance versus apathy. I think it's a fundamental flaw in the representative democracy system. There's just too many people, and they're too easily manipulated by the mass media. Unless you make it a major hobby to keep up with politics and do lots of independent research, you're going to have your opinions handed to you by *someone*.

It's just like religious control in the Dark Ages, except swap out the Bible with the truth, and the church with a combination of government, media and corporations working in concert to stay in power and increase that power. They've learned how to do a pretty damn good job of it now too.

I seriously doubt that voting is going to make anything better (hell, there's serious doubt as to whether people's votes will even truly be counted any more). There just isn't a system of government that works well enough for a country the size of the U.S. It was a great experiment, but the founders could never have imagined the power of corporations and mass media, nor how big and powerful we'd get.

I'm too depressed to vote because of all this. Even if I wasn't I'd be torn between voting for the lesser of two evils, or voting for whatever will suck us down the drain the fastest. Face it, your votes don't count any more - lobbyist money does. To fix things, we'd need to eliminate not just the completely retarded two-party system (seriously, wtf?), but parties altogether so that politicians are forced to run on their own merit alone. We'd have to eliminate lobbying and force corporations to go through the people (which still wouldn't solve everything since people are easily manipulated, especially by corporate mass-media).

The U.S. is fucked. Enjoy the ride into hell ladies and gentlemen. Great time to be alive.

Re:Let me correct that last sentence for you:

[Evilest Doer]

Absolutley, and as a major importer of cattle trucks into the US I'm happy to report that with the large new orders in the pipeline I'll soon be able to retire and live a life of luxury. It's not all doom and gloom you know.

And as a major supplier of handbaskets, I'm making a killing as Americans get all their accessories ready for our next trip.

Re:Let me correct that last sentence for you:

[FunWithKnives]

I wholeheartedly agree with you; I was focusing more upon how we let it get to the point that it has. We, as a whole, let our vigilance lapse long ago; otherwise, we would have enacted a multitude of necessary changes. You are right in that it generally does not matter who you vote for, or indeed whether you vote or abstain. The plurality voting system does an absolutely horrible job of representing everyone in a populous nation. Of course, full representation happens to be one of the main tenets of representative democracy.

The first thing that we need to do, in my view, is relegate plurality voting to the dustbin of history, and institute a system of proportional representation. Everyone would have an infinitely greater chance of finding either a candidate or party (depending upon the version of PR used) that holds beliefs similar to their own. This has the potential to do away with the brunt of voter apathy, and would also result in more change, due to the multitude of views being expressed. Ironically, one of the main arguments against PR is that ballots would be "too complicated." This has been found to be untrue, and I recommend reading up on the history of proportional representation in the United States to see why.

Another issue, which I see as allowing unrivaled corruption just as you do, is lobbyists. We need to completely abolish corporate lobbying. Along with this, two things need to be done. Real campaign finance reform. I stand behind banning any and all donations, and financing campaigns purely from public funds, with a (very low) cap. Of course candidates running independently would need a certain number or percentage of constituents behind them in order to benefit from this. With PR in place, however, it would not be so much of an issue as it is now. Also, we need to do something about corporations having our public "servants" in their back pockets. I propose setting a required timeframe, both before and after being elected to hold office, in which it is not possible to hold high managerial positions within a corporation. Say ten years or so. Some may say that this is unfair, but hell. What is more unfair? Someone not being able to be a CEO and receive a salary of millions for ten years, or the collective fucking of 300 million people? At least those running for office can choose whether or not to do so.

Yet another staple of the current system that needs to go is "career politicians." Quite frankly, it is disgusting that this has been allowed for so long within a supposedly democratic country. Relatively short term limits need to be set for every elected official, and there needs to be a requirement that one may only serve in a particular branch of government once. If a truly corrupt asshat somehow makes it into office, and for some reason we cannot get rid of him or her, the saving grace will be that term limit. The office of president comes to mind. Imagine if Bush was able to be reelected perpetually. Zany antics would ensue, of that I am certain.

Of course, all of this is just for starters, and it is very questionable as to whether half of it could even be instituted, considering how far gone we are already. Whether evolutionary or revolutionary, though, the fact remains that it does need to happen. As for me, I'm not holding out any sort of hope. I am currently planning to finish college, put in some time with the Peace Corps (or an alternative of some sort), and then get the hell out of the country. I will pursue my graduate degrees elsewhere. Unless something goes drastically right within the next four years or so, my views and those of this country (if I may anthropomorphize it) are diametrically opposed to one another.

Phew!

[illegibledotorg]

I feel safer, already.
Thank God we're finally catching these damned terrorists. I hope he hangs.

Re:Phew!

[Linnen]

Why would they raid the Oval Office when the prosecutor could not prove that the White House had anything to do with the leak?
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'.

Actions like these distinguish the system

[A beautiful mind]

Actions like these are the difference between a fascist dictatorship and a democracy (yes, even though the USA is a republic, it is also ment to be a democracy so don't bring it up thanks).

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

[labnet]

"Fascist" is such a poorly defined word Yes, but the OP confined its meaning well when he said

Saying that "The State" is right no matter what and inferring Bush and Co are on a supress all oposition below the threshold of reaction from the general populace. It will be interesting if they manage to rig the coming election so they can continue their PNAC agenda. I also find it interesting that anyone with a clue thinks the currrent regime is off the rails, but there seems to be no major backlash?? Why is this so? Is the media really that controlled, is it apathy, or is really not a problem, and internet chat is just amplifying not much?

Re:Actions like these distinguish the system

[FunWithKnives]

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.

Re:Actions like these distinguish the system

[Opportunist]

Almost all fascist dictatorships in the 20th century actually rose to power through democratic means. Hitler was the appointed chancellor of the German Reich, his party won the elections of 1934. A similar process worked for Italy (Mussolini was appointed prime minister of Italy) and Austria (Dollfuß was the elected chancellor of Austria).

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:Actions like these distinguish the system

[Opportunist]

All fine and nice, but in this case, the apparatus is used against someone who dared to blow the whistle on illegal government activities. The message is pretty clear, if you know of anything illegal done by the feds, better shut up or we come after you.

And I doubt this is a good thing.

Re:Actions like these distinguish the system

[sumdumass]

What apparatus are you talking about?

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

[jschrod]

Ah, and he got popularity by remaining anonymous? Your argumentative logic is overwhelming.

*PLONK*

Re:Actions like these distinguish the system

[rbanffy]

It's been observed that any dictatorship requires a permanent state of emergency or war. Based on this, all kinds of law and basic rights can be disrespected based on the higher requirement of national security. If it lasts long enough, the whole society can also be shaped in ways that suppress as much as possible any willingness or ability to resist. While the US is not a dictatorship and many Americans can see what is wrong, what can happen (yes - it can get far worse than it is now) and take some action - organizing themselves, registering as voters and voting (please, by all means, _do_ vote - it's _your_ government, not something imposed on you)

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

[arhavu]

From an outsider's point of view (I'm from Finland myself), it seems that one of the problems is that everything in the US gets turned into a dichotomy between the democrats and the republicans. It seems that every time somebody tries to bring up a valid point about the way things are run or working within the government, someone else will counter that by claiming the original argument simply stems from party affiliation. And everything is easily reduced to partisan bickering (sort of what Jon Stewart complained about on Crossfire). I see that happening here on Slashdot a lot as well. Every time there's a discussion about politics, it seems pointless to me to read it, because I know it will only degrade into two camps insulting each other and not really discussing anything. Especially with the divisive issues like gun control, etc, but also in general. There never seems to be a possibility of a third viewpoint, of a compromise. Hell, there's only two parties anyway, so naturally there can be only two possible solutions to any problem, right?

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:Actions like these distinguish the system

[arhavu]

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

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.

Re:Actions like these distinguish the system

[griffjon]

I don't think we should even wait for the next elections; Bush and Dick have done so much outside the scope or in flagrant violation of their oaths of office that we should impeach the lousy SOBs. It's another 531 days before they leave office. Not that I'm a big Pelosi fan, but she wouldn't be actively ripping up the Constitution; and the hearings themselves would bring so many skeletons out of the closet that the neocon movement would just crumble.

Re:Actions like these distinguish the system

[Critical Facilities]

As an American, I could not agree with you more. It's very unfortunate that a large portion of the voting public (those that can even be bothered to stand in line to vote in the first place) feel that their only option is to vote for one party or another. I believe that a large part of this problem is the ridiculous, antiquated Electoral College. It is precisely this sliding scale which makes it possible for political candidates to play the odds and take advantage of various "hot button" issues.

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:Actions like these distinguish the system

[goldspider]

On the other hand, she (and other Democratic congressional leaders) have done little to change the course of our country since they gained control of congress. They have the "power of the purse," yet have done nothing with that power to correct our course.

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:Actions like these distinguish the system

[Anonymous Curmudgeon]

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

- 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.

Re:Actions like these distinguish the system

[Deadplant]

Almost every single person in Washington needs to be removed and sent home for a few years. Two complete years with none of the normal people in Washington.

If we were alone in this world, it would be a great thing to do. But we are just one country on this planet, so I'm not sure I want to imagine what a more openly anti-US country would do during that time. My fantasy:

1) Bring your entire army and Navy home.
2) Deploy them on the borders for 5-10 years.
3) devolve responsibility for any vital domestic services to state governments.
3) Completely shut down your federal government.
4) hold 3-6 years of debates and referendums to decide what kind of federal system you want.
5) hold elections and construct/staff your new federal government agencies.

I would even recommend an amnesty for the criminals in the current system so that you can get a full account of what went wrong.

Because I don't kmow

[pembo13]

Could someone tell me ho legal this is? Seems to me that police type groups shouldn't be able to pursue what could easily be construed as a vendetta.

Re:Because I don't kmow

[pearlgauss]

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.

An American Episode of Russian Fascism

[reporter]

The American official who leaked the warrantless wiretapping program to the media is a hero, not a culprit. Such leakers are people with conscience. The leaker was likely shocked by the gross violation of civil rights (which the warrantless wiretapping program trampled) and gave vital information about the wiretapping program to the media. The media then informed the American public.

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.

Re:An American Episode of Russian Fascism

[Dragonslicer]

Without the leaker, our government would still be conducting warrantless wiretapping. You haven't been watching the news lately, have you?

Re:Objectivity?

[AuMatar]

No need. Merely read the Constitution. Its in there in black and white that this is illegal.

Am I the only one

[jon287]

Who is really REALLY afriad of a "national emergency" that requires a "temporary extension of the current administration" happening in the next year or so? And not just in the sarcastic "it would figure" kind of way, but a "it might actually happen, then what?!" kind of way.

Re:Am I the only one

[cosmocain]

two words...

Rebuilding America will take longer than that

[billstewart]

The Bush/Cheney Administration has spent the last 6+ years building an organizational, legal, and technical infrastructure for Executive Branch power, including anything from wiretap infrastructures to the Patriot Act to stuffing the courts and Justice Department with pro-executive-power people,
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:Rebuilding America will take longer than that

[Ephemeriis]

The Bush/Cheney Administration has spent the last 6+ years building an organizational, legal, and technical infrastructure for Executive Branch power, including anything from wiretap infrastructures to the Patriot Act to stuffing the courts and Justice Department with pro-executive-power people, and getting states, banks, credit companies, airlines, etc. to do massive data collection.

Granted, the US Government has been moving in this direction for quite some time now. Each administration seeks additional power and information - supposedly to help them better govern and protect us. But with the Bush/Cheney administration everything seems to have come to a head. It seems like they're operating without any supervision at all.

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

One of my major fears at the moment is that irreparable harm has been done to the US Government. It's very unlikely that we'll get any kind of visionary elected who actually wants to change things for the better...actually wants to go back to a restricted and accountable government... But even if we do, the infrastructure is all in place to make such a transition back to the old values difficult if not impossible. I suspect that, regardless of who we elect next time around, it's all going to be downhill from here.

Re:Let's see...

[Entropius]

You may have an honest disagreement with Clinton about what the correct way to use the US's resources is. Maybe you would rather have lower taxes, or better infrastructure, or aid to the Third World, or free nationally subsidized porn, than universal health care -- that's a debate our nation is going to have to have, and sensible honest citizens can have differences of opinion.

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

[ta bu shi da yu]

I was researching the USA PATRIOT Act for Wikipedia, and all those people like Orin Kerr insisted that the changes to FISA wouldn't lead to abuses. Guess we can see what a hollow promise that was.

Re:Wow

[Moridineas]

Ok, so I can see where you're coming from... you believe that this case--investigating the leak of classified material is an abuse (though I fail to see how it's related to FISA reform).

Were you also against any investigation into the Valerie Plame leak?

Re:Why prosecute?

[Mistlefoot]

If a secret service agent raped your sister and then the President declared his identity "classified" would it be okay for your sister to say who did it? She's be outing a CIA member and leaking information that was deemed classified?

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.

If they've got warrants, it's "legal" - just dirty

[billstewart]

If they've got warrants, it's legal*, just dirty. Or if they've got FISA court permission. If they were doing a strictly partisan political attack against Democrats, it might be dirty enough to actually be illegal, but investigating a former Administration official for possibly leaking military secrets is ostensibly the responsible thing for them to do.

If the information that was allegedly possibly leaked had been enough for somebody to actually prosecute some Executive Branch people (whether FBI or Pentagon or NSA or whatever) and they'd gotten convicted already, *then* this kind of raid might count as "obstruction of justice", but they're acting sufficiently proactively that they'll at least get away with it until the Bush Administration is out of office. And probably after that as well.

------

* If they don't have warrants or permission, well, the Bush Administration thinks it's legal anyway, and they've got a Justice Department who wouldn't prosecute them for doing it and they've stacked the Federal courts as well.

Re:Objectivity?

[A beautiful mind]

Rape is such a nasty word. Couldn't we call it "suprise sex"?

What will they find ...

[Alain Williams]

Kiddie porn, music files, unlicensed software ? Who knows ? Of course no one will believe Mr Tamm when he says that this stuff was not on his PC when it left his house.

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.

Well said!!!

[Travoltus]

A totally transparent populace ruled by a totally secret Government is the perfect model of national security!

[Republican parody mode off]

Re:Sense of perspective

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Because they are in power, and the republican dictatorship will continue beyond 08. ... In the form of Democrats.

Punish the Right Choice

[Doc Daneeka]

It's a good thing our government has it's priorities straight and is punishing those that make the right choice and blow the whistle on illegal activities instead of encouraging those in key positions of power to bend, and break, the law whenever it benefits the party in power. Leaking information to foreign governments: bad. Leaking information about illegal activities occurring regularly in a program with no judicial or congressional oversight to the national media: good. Whoever actually leaked the information should be given a fucking medal and a pay raise. Since he or she will probably be fired, tried for treason, and blackballed out of any governmental or "secret heavy job" from here on out, I'd like to thank you for sticking to your moral compass and doing what you believed was correct. You did a great service to the people of this country, and you deserve much better than what may come your way in the future.

"Enabling Act of 1933" would be the Patriot Act

[Anonymous Coward]

Strictly speaking the Enabling Act (aka "Law to Remedy the Distress of the People and the Nation") equivalent was the Patriot act (aka "UNITING AND STRENGTHENING AMERICA BY PROVIDING APPROPRIATE TOOLS REQUIRED TO INTERCEPT AND OBSTRUCT TERRORISM").

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

[Flying pig]

After the Metropolitan Police in the UK kept us all so much safer by shooting an innocent Brazilian electrician seven times in the head while he sat in an Underground train, then claimed that they shot him while he was jumping over a barrier to escape them, wearing a nonexistent padded jacket to conceal a bomb, a journalist made the mistake of exposing this. He was promptly subjected to police harrassment, including having his girlfriend locked up without charge with no access to food or water, and given a blanket infected with lice.

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:Happens everywhere

[Slashamatic]

MI6/SIS is foreign only whilst MI5 are domestic. If someone from overseas comes to the UK then 6 is supposed to hand the problem over to 5 as they have no infrastructure for UK based ops. Note that there is a certain healthy rivalry between the services which limits their power. Five do have officers out and about (most famously at places like Heathrow) and they actually work through so-called Special Branch rather than the regular police. If five tell SB to do something that they think is illegal, then SB can and do challenge it.

I would agree that regional accountability is one of the reasons for the UK's succes which is why I shudder at each step towards a 'national' force.

Re:Objectivity?

[metachimp]

Last I heard, they were calling it an "unplanned sexual event"...

No, seriously.

So what's the big deal?

[chefmonkey]

What's the big deal? I mean, the last time the president hunted someone down on a political vendetta regarding a leak, he ended up commuting the sentence before a single minute of jail time was served. Or are we cynical enough to think that he did that only because Scooter Libby is a Republican?

Oh, wait. Yeah, I guess we are.

Re:Danger, Will Robinson, Danger!

[HappyEngineer]

You're missing the point. He is hardly FOR anything at all. He votes no on practically everything. Granted, his stance on abortion is scary, but one way to tell a true states rights person from an anti-abortion states rights faker is how they vote on anything to do with drugs.

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.

They will hunt you down ...

[hachete]

The article reminds of the case of the guy who was the anonymous whistle-blower for Abu Grahib. In a NY times article, he tells how he first felt paranoid about his fellow guards but worse was to come when Rumsfeld congratulated him on the Abu Grahib whistle-blowing in front of a crowded canteen. Even though the whistle-blower received a letter of apology after, I share his disbelief that Rumsfeld - a control-freak and a stickler for detail - was unaware of the consequences of his actions.

The whole tenor of this administration - from Bush downwards - is one of petty and mean-mindedness. It will be good when they go, for they do nothing but poison the American body politic and bring it into dis-repute.

Listen again Radio4 - Abu Graib story

[fantomas]

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/

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" ...) 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?

Before the hyperventilation gets too out of hand..

[tiqui]

Individuals simply do not have the right to expose secret programs even if they do not like them. If you are angry about this but support the prosecution of Scooter Libby then you have some explaining to do ( particularly when Scooter leaked NOTHING; it was Bush critic Richard Armitage in the State Department who did the actual Valerie Plame leaking ) If this guy really did the leak, then he hurt national security by tipping-off enemies. It matters not if most enemies assumed we were listening; if even ONE enemy did not think of it but was clued-in by the leak then harm was done. If he leaked but the program ultimately is found to be an illegal program and people involved in the program are sent off to jail, then the leaker should get leniency as Scooter got a break... but even if you like this leak, it is still NO LESS ILLEGAL to DO the leak.

Re:Why prosecute?

[Mattsson]

Of course, if the agent in question is a friend of the president, he can always be pardoned if he should be found guilty in court. =P

Here's a scenario for you.

[khasim]

Jack Bauer is in the super secret NSA communication intercept room along with various other people.

Unnamed extra #1: "Sir, you need to see this. It's Osama's cell phone! And the call is coming across OUR circuit!"

JB: "Dammit! He's up to something. I want that call intercepted and get me a translator! I want to know what he's saying and to whom he is saying it!"

Unnamed extra #2: "But sir, if we don't get a warrant within the next 72 hours, that will be ILLEGAL!"

JB: "No problem. I only need 24. Just tap that call!"

JB walks over to a different phone and picks it up.

JB: "Get me the FISA court! This is an emergency!"

Begin one-way telephone communication bit ...

JB: "I have an emergency and I need a warrant! No, I'm not going to wait! Yes, I will be right over! That's right, I want your Liberal judge ass sitting on that bench when I arrive!"

JB slams down the phone and walks over to unnamed extra #1.

JB: "Are you getting it all?"

UE#1: "Yes sir. Will there be a problem with the warrant?"

JB: "Not as long as I still have 3 days to get it there won't be."

JB then grabs some paper work and runs to his car. He then races across D.C. avoiding enemy mines, fighter aircraft and snipers. He screeches to a halt outside of the Court and runs up the steps. He slams open the door to the judge's chambers and throws the paperwork at him.

JB: "Listen, you have less than 71 hours and 26 minutes to sign that warrant or I'll have your terrorist loving Liberal ass!"

Unnamed Judge: "Always nice to see you, Jack. Here's your warrant. Let's see, that leaves you 71 hours and 24 minutes to get back to your secret spy base. Can you manage that this time without speeding or running over anything? Hmmmmm?"

JB: "You Liberal judges make me sick! My ass is on the line every time I have to drive over here! Good bye!"

JB then runs down to his car, notices the parking ticket on the windshield and throws it away. He then gets in and races back to work. Avoiding various mines, attacking aircraft and snipers.

Yes, the "ACLU types" are really trying to "slow down the wiretaps". 72 hours is just not enough time to get a warrant. What if JB had to take some time off to go look at swatches with his wife? What if he wanted to maybe take a couple of days in Reno when a terrorist call was coming in? Maybe there was a concert he wanted to go see! It's just too much to ask for them to process the paperwork in only THREE DAYS!

Re:Here's a scenario for you, with more ...

[OldHawk777]

Unnamed extra #21: Yo, JB, I use the secure +256-BitKey fax to communicate, process, and eSig all official documents with the FISA court judge, and I have my wiretap warrant in an hour or far less.

JB: DAMN! why wasn't I told that there is a secure full-color fax at the FISA court, and could someone tell me who makes and sends my secure-faxes in this office ...? Shit, it ain't like I am ever told anything about such things around here. DAMN, I got to find out for myself (#$$%$^&$% am I the only asshole working to save god and country around here &$%%*&#) when everything is in SNAFU mode.

Unnamed extra #21: DAMN, JB, this is a test ... do you know what you are doing or why, or are you doing that look big, good, and important thing for career management imaging/posturing?

Re:Let Me Rephrase This To The Bush Haters

[syntaxglitch]

I realize most of the /. readers are far, if not radical left, wingers, but when Hillary is in the White House, I expect not to see word one going against her. You know it, I know it.

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:Fabrication not insightfull

[GauteL]

"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.

Re:Let Me Rephrase This To The Bush Haters

[salimma]

If this clown violated a ton of US Code, it's Club Fed time. Justice is in deed blind, and regardless of your dripping venom for Bush, people who violate US Code for their personal agenda (gee isn't that what you want Bush impeached for?) need to face the music for their endangerment of gaing intelligence against a sworn enemy of the US.

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:It's all a setup

[smitth1276]

It helps to know what you're talking about, though. No informed person is under the impression that anyone can "see and hear everything you do". This NSA program we are discussing involves listening to specific "targets" who are necessarily located outside of the United States. The only controversy is whether a warrant is required if a non-target who is on US soil is involved in a call with a target on foreign soil or, as we have learned recently, if an entirely foreign call passes through switches in the United States.

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

[DanielMarkham]

Okay.

I understand that, of late, the game is rigged on /. Bush and his cronies are all fascists, keeping a war alive in order to keep up oppression, yadda, yadda, yadda.

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.

[MadMidnightBomber]

But when a Democrat is president, and he tries to send the police for the next big strike when an aircraft carrier is called for, will you remember this conversation?

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:Why we need the NSA

[hawkinspeter]

Hello? Bletchley Park anyone?

Re:Let Me Rephrase This To The Bush Haters

[jollyreaper]

On the other hand, the fact that Hillary is actually a viable presidential candidate is probably Bush's fault, too. ;) Ooh, I'm so gonna use that line on my dad. Probably give him another heart attack but it'd be worth it.

What I find so sadly amusing about hardcore righties like him (he's a talk radio radical, loves Savage, Rush, Hannity, etc) is that they can ignore the evidence of Bush lying us into war, abusing our civil rights, exposing CIA agents, fucking the economy, ass-fucking the environment, tea-bagging the military, and tubgirling the entire Iraq war, but it's the "wetback crisis" that finally has them upset. But oh, they blame this on those goddamn liberals who think that the rights of "furriners" are more important than honest "murricans", along with venom for Bush "going along with them," but they never stop to ask "Who the fuck is employing all these illegals?" They may be illegal but they ain't dumb, they wouldn't be coming here if there wasn't any work! Go after the people employing them and you'll see the flow stop. But who makes the money off of that? Republican-owned businesses. Aaaaaaah, now we see the truth. Obviously it's a fucking liberal conspiracy to get these wetbacks in here working for Republicans. *Jolly twirls finger beside head*

I do wish the dems were as effective political creatures as the talk radio radicals seem to think they are. Shit, with the amount of opposition they're allegedly putting up, Bush should have been impeached already. Back in reality-land, all I see them doing is asking Bush if he'd like a rimjob to go with all that ass-kissing they're doing.

Re:Let Me Rephrase This To The Bush Haters

[_Sprocket_]

What if the military did this? The military is predominately Republican. Are you sure you want this precedent set? The next time the military disagrees with an order by Hillary they can ignore it? If she goes too far on her anti-Republican agenda they should put her under house arrest? The US Military are expected to follow only lawful orders. If (God forbid) Hilary Clinton is our next president and gives an order that is patently illegal, I hope there is resistance and whistleblowers.

Re:Let Me Rephrase This To The Bush Haters

[bkr1_2k]

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.

Not civil disobedience

[Tony]

This was not a case of civil disobedience. The leaker released details on an unlawful program. This is no different (from a legal standpoint) from an informer giving the police information on a drug ring, or providing information about corporate malfeasance.

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.

Legalities

[Tony]

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.

What a pack of crap. People need to know.

[twitter]

At the time, Gonzo tried to justify the program in a similar but more direct way,

At the time, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said of the leak: "This is really hurting national security; this has really hurt our country."

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.

Which leakers are the problem?

[AK Marc]

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.

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

[jafac]

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.

Re:Let Me Rephrase This To The Bush Haters

[bkr1_2k]

You mean the conservative roots of small government? Maybe you're thinking of a balanced budget, or perhaps you mean upholding the Constitution and fighting for individual and state rights instead of federal power? Or maybe environmental issues like Roosevelt suggested, or the Clean Air Act that Nixon promoted?

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.