What is Digg?6 Comments
- uncleosbert, on 01/07/2009, -0/+9some background from the earlier article:
"Tamm says he confirmed with his career colleagues in the Department that the conduct was criminal. One told him that she expected the attorney general would be indicted when the news became public (a prediction that may well come true). Attorney general-designate Eric Holder has declared that the surveillance program was a violation of the FISA statute. And the far-from-radical American Bar Association also issued an extraordinary conclusion: the administration was violating the FISA statute. So who does believe the program was lawful? Bush Administration political hacks who most likely will be investigated, and possibly prosecuted, when the whole story comes out. After the fashion of totalitarian states, they are usually short on an explanation for how it is lawful, and long on threats to prosecute anyone who talks about it. In their language, “national security” assumes overtones that sociologists attribute to organized crime groups in Naples and Sicily: omertà. And presumably that’s why Tamm is in the crosshairs."
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/12/hbc-9000402 ... - novenator, on 01/08/2009, -0/+7Its such a shame that we need whistle-blowers or other people willing to risk their livelihoods and careers to expose surveillance of millions of Americans. This domestic espionage is at least as bad as what the KGB used to do, probably more invasive (but more covert).
- uncleosbert, on 01/07/2009, -0/+7"Tamm says he confirmed with his career colleagues in the Department that the conduct was criminal. One told him that she expected the attorney general would be indicted when the news became public (a prediction that may well come true). Attorney general-designate Eric Holder has declared that the surveillance program was a violation of the FISA statute. And the far-from-radical American Bar Association also issued an extraordinary conclusion: the administration was violating the FISA statute."
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/12/hbc-9000402 ...
when linda tripp went to the justice department, it launched an investigation into the president's sex life that lasted for almost 2 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_Tripp
i guess you forgot? harpers doesn't really have to defend people when everyone in the justice department acts on their fears about the president's conduct. - novenator, on 01/08/2009, -0/+6how about the traitors who exposed the undercover CIA op Valerie Plame when her husband refused to manufacture evidence that Saddam was seeking WMDs in Africa?
- normlsparky, on 01/08/2009, -0/+1Quit being such a partisan hack. The people in the Bush Administration willfully ignored and violated the law and used the cover of national security to shield themselves from the consequences.
- ImperialRome, on 01/07/2009, -4/+1Thomas Tamm violated the Espionage Act by passing along the information to the NY Times. He should be prosecuted for his actions. But I guess that doesn't figure when its a Democrat whistleblower and a Republican President.
When the roles were reversed, and it was a Republican Whistleblower and a Democrat President, did Harpers rush to the defense of the whistleblower?
Ask Linda Tripp if she got this kind of support. Nah, didnt think so.
No big deal, vassever. Bruno is our latest guest for Digg Dialogg. 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is