Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

FBI Raids Home of Suspected NSA Leaker

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the real-enemies dept.

Privacy 608

During the hours that Congress was debating codifying the Bush administration's wiretapping by revising the FISA law, the Department of Justice was raiding the home of former Justice official Thomas M. Tamm to identify the person who first brought the illicit program to light: "The agents seized Tamm's desktop computer, two of his children's laptops and a cache of personal files... the raid was related to a Justice criminal probe into who leaked details of the warrantless eavesdropping program to the news media... James X. Dempsey of the Center for Democracy and Technology said the raid was 'amazing' and shows the administration's misplaced priorities: using FBI agents to track down leakers instead of processing intel warrants to close the [purported surveillance] gaps."

cancel ×

608 comments

What's the solution? Depends ... (2, Funny)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 6 years ago | (#20129345)

"FBI Raids Home of Suspected NSA Leaker ".

Oops - NSA, not NASA.

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

Don't FUCK with King George !! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20139309)

Don't FUCK with King George !! He will git you !! He ganged Sadam (I much would have preferred the axe, in keeping with tradition), and he used to be your buddy !! What chance have you got ??

Re:What's the solution? Depends ... (-1, Flamebait)

WgT2 (591074) | more than 6 years ago | (#20139623)

But seriously folks...

"...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." Next time you're on a boat with a leak whether that leak gets fixed in transit or whether the 'gap between you and land gets filled' will depend on the severity of the leak... and whether it's too late to fix.

I doubt the general public, at least for a decade or so, will be allowed to know how much of an impact the leaker (whomever it was) had on our work to protect ourselves, the which IS needed - just check the threats that are actually coming in across the news. In any case it was damaging.

Let me correct that last sentence for you: (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20138985)

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: (4, Insightful)

Unixfreak31 (634088) | more than 6 years ago | (#20139009)

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: (0, Flamebait)

lixee (863589) | more than 6 years ago | (#20139071)

Untill people do the people in office will abuuse power the temptation is VERY hard to resisit.
Dude, lay off whatever drug you're on.

Re:Let me correct that last sentence for you: (1)

Unixfreak31 (634088) | more than 6 years ago | (#20139105)

Just tired (working 3rds) and didn't preview.

Re:Let me correct that last sentence for you: (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20139215)

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: (5, Insightful)

FunWithKnives (775464) | more than 6 years ago | (#20139409)

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: (4, Informative)

joe_adk (589355) | more than 6 years ago | (#20139483)

For those who don't know: Panem et Circense [blogspot.com]

Re:Let me correct that last sentence for you: (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20139619)

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."

By "be eternally vigilant" do you mean undercutting and hamstringing and tying the hands of government agencies so that they cannot take any steps to protect the country from the external forces who would do it harm because to do so might "harm your civil liberties" ?

And do you further mean blaming the government for not taking steps to protect you from catastrophic events that occur due to the undercutting and hamstringing and tying of hands you previously insisted upon to "protect your civil liberties" ?

There really are external forces who want very badly to harm this nation. Try being "eternally vigilant" about them for a change instead of treating your own government like it is trying to load you onto box cars and ship you off to a detention center for reeducation or liquidation.

Re:Let me correct that last sentence for you: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20139377)

Fuckers. Its not enough for them to lose the election. We should be seeing jail time for this sort of overreaching corruption.
We'll have to see how the investigation goes. Assuming for the sake of argument that the investigated person is the actual leaker, I would have more sympathy if he or she had first tried to hand the information off to some Senators and Representatives. These leaks shouldn't be coming out in the newspapers from anonymous sources. They should be coming out from what is supposed to be normal Congressional oversight. A random employee doesn't have the right to release intelligence information to the press. But he or she does have the right to bring it to the attention of Congress.

And if the information is really important to be released but is being held up by a majority in Congress, let's just say that Congressional aides are a lot better at leaking stuff and covering their asses than some random employee. If the information needs to be released, hand it to several Congressmen and it will be released.

Re:Let me correct that last sentence for you: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20139567)

Assuming for the sake of argument that the investigated person is the actual leaker, I would have more sympathy if he or she had first tried to hand the information off to some Senators and Representatives.


Which Congresscritters should he have delivered the info to? The ones that rubberstamp what Bush demands, and then question the patriotism of any that disagree, or the ones that whine about it for a couple of days and then rubber stamp it anyway?

Re:Let me correct that last sentence for you: (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 6 years ago | (#20139643)

Ain't that some shit. don't you remember, you know way back before all the politicking and bashing was concentrated on this?

Both houses of congress knew about this program before they blew the whistles. Well, leaders of the inteligence comities in both houses anyways. They were briefed on it regularly by the president who says he reviewed and reauthorized the program every 45 days. They didn't seem to object to it, they were in a position to do something if they thought it was necessary and it didn't concern anyone in the know until after it hit front page.

I don't know if whoever leaked this did so to other members of congress first (those who weren't in the know) or how it was originally leaked. The problem with congress critters leaking information is that it is usually timed and then only released enough to help their careers out or help the party in some way. This happens all the time in congress. The mark folley "pagegate" was probably one of the worst examples I can think of in recent times but there are plenty more.

Phew! (5, Funny)

illegibledotorg (1123239) | more than 6 years ago | (#20138999)

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

Re:Phew! - time machine, anyone else (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20139613)

>Thank God we're finally catching these damned terrorists. I hope he hangs.
Trivial, by the date in the second link you've got almost a week advance warning compared to my European vacation calendar: (European time August 7. 2007, link: US time August 13. 2007) [msn.com]

Now ... that drink ... and that television series...

It's not a stretch at all (1)

NaCh0 (6124) | more than 6 years ago | (#20139001)

It makes perfect sense. Since the ACLU types tried to slow down the wiretaps, the FBI had plenty of free cycles to go after leakers of secret programs.

Good; leakers endanger national security. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20139013)

Don't give me that "information wants to be free" or "security through obscurity doesn't work" bunk; the USA has been built on a foundation of necessary secrecy ever since the invention of potential doomsday weapons [state.gov] ; since before near any of you who post on Slashdot were born.

This was the society you were born into, Americans; this is the rule of law. Civil disobedience when it comes to national security is not acceptable in an age of doomsday weapons. That isn't fearmongering, it's fact - policy that's been determined through considered rational thought, and which has organically evolved to meet the challenges of the times.

Re:Good; leakers endanger national security. (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 6 years ago | (#20139185)

...policy that's been determined through considered rational thought, and which has organically evolved to meet the challenges of the times.

"...It is the international system of currency which determines the totality of life on this planet. That is the natural order of things today. That is the atomic and subatomic and galactic structure of things today! And YOU have meddled with the primal forces of nature, and YOU WILL ATONE!..."

Well said!!! (4, Funny)

Travoltus (110240) | more than 6 years ago | (#20139317)

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

[Republican parody mode off]

Actions like these distinguish the system (5, Insightful)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 6 years ago | (#20139023)

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 (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 6 years ago | (#20139117)

I think that the Patriot Act is still in effect. This means that the USA is still operating under a limited State of Emergency. The situation is not 'normal' at all.

Re:Actions like these distinguish the system (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 6 years ago | (#20139143)

Ferinstance: TITLE II--ENHANCED SURVEILLANCE PROCEDURES Sec. 201. Authority to intercept wire, oral, and electronic communications relating to terrorism. Sec. 202. Authority to intercept wire, oral, and electronic communications relating to computer fraud and abuse offenses. Sec. 203. Authority to share criminal investigative information. Sec. 204. Clarification of intelligence exceptions from limitations on interception and disclosure of wire, oral, and electronic communications. Yada, yada... Your government passed that act and it partially suspends your constitution - get used to it - it probably won't be lifted anytime soon.

Re:Actions like these distinguish the system (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20139261)

Correct. As long as the PATRIOT act is in effect, traditional law has no meaning. I believe the NYT exact adjective for the current administration was "lawless [nytimes.com] " Everyone in this country knew that the rules had fundamentally changed, when legislation called "The PATRIOT Act" went into effect. This is not the america of our youth, when the word "patriot" had an unsoiled meaning.

Re:Actions like these distinguish the system (1, Insightful)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 6 years ago | (#20139173)

"Fascist" is such a poorly defined word as to be useless to any form of argument short of these meant to invoke an emotional response.

Re:Actions like these distinguish the system (3, Interesting)

labnet (457441) | more than 6 years ago | (#20139247)

"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 (1)

Yetihehe (971185) | more than 6 years ago | (#20139285)

Is the media really that controlled, is it apathy, or is really not a problem, and internet chat is just amplifying not much?
I think it's just apathy.

Re:Actions like these distinguish the system (1, Insightful)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 6 years ago | (#20139365)

No, it is that the majority of people don't see it as a problem and that Internet chats is only amplifying it when preaching to the quire.

Not getting into the right or wrong of the program, when it was first broke to the public, it was divulged that only people talking to suspected terrorist when one of the parties to the conversation are outside the country and that the inteligence commity in congress knew about it. On the internet, people make it sound like Bush is interested in How aunt tilley makes chocolate chip cookies or how uncle ralph got a hole in one at the charity golf outing. The vast majority of people I know of only know the official version of listening in on people talking to terrorist so they think it is fine.

Another problem is how people blow this out of scale and then react to non believers. They almost go to the point of stating that they should be able to talk to terrorist in the phone without fear of being listened in on by the government. Then when someone disagrees, they get criticized because for not bashing bush enough. It appears that the opposition to the program are just a repeat of the attacks on clinton in the 90's where the other side is crying and grasping for everything they can. They end up with the impression that it is a witch hunt. I side with them on that and do get the same impressions. I also don't see a problem with listening to Americans talking to terrorist in the phone when they killed 3000+ people with one organized plot. It may be giving up a right, but I'm not sure that plotting a terrorist attack free from government attempts to find out about it is a right we should hold dear.

Re:Actions like these distinguish the system (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20139587)

Unbelievable what some people say about this.
It's not the fact that people should be able to speak to terrorists without being overheard.
The problem is that it de facto creates an anti-democratic state within a state.
It can't be controlled, and can't be managed by a democratic state.
Simply putting organisations and people on a terrorist list, makes them criminals lacking legal support.
It can not be controlled because of the 'national security issues'involved.
The fact that some people deny this makes them naive at best.

Re:Actions like these distinguish the system (5, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 6 years ago | (#20139627)

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 (2, Insightful)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 6 years ago | (#20139699)

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 (4, Informative)

FunWithKnives (775464) | more than 6 years ago | (#20139349)

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.

An American Episode of Russian Fascism (5, Insightful)

reporter (666905) | more than 6 years ago | (#20139181)

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.

Why prosecute? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20139231)

Simple: he broke the law.

He may have been justified. Hell, I think he's a hero, and if I were on the jury I'd vote to acquit.

But no matter how justified, he leaked classified information, which his superiors and co-workers expected him to hold in confidence. At the very least the government should know who he is, and determine whether he should still have access to that kind of information. Who's to say he won't leak more information, and that it will be justified that time too?

Re:Why prosecute? (5, Insightful)

Mistlefoot (636417) | more than 6 years ago | (#20139297)

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.

Re:Why prosecute? (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 6 years ago | (#20139421)

Your example it a little off. First, you can break the law when some circumstances exist. It is often done when killing in self defense or when JayWalking to escape an out of control car driving down the sidewalk.

Sometimes it isn't plain obvious and the courts need to determine if you were justified in breaking a law in order to do something.

It isn't a matter of calling something classified either. The agent would have had to of been classified in the first place and you would have to know about it. With laws like these, there is a matter of conscious and intent that needs to be determined before administrating the laws. Something as simple as knowing or knowingly usually has to be accompanied with something about divulging secretes.

Re:Why prosecute? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 6 years ago | (#20139647)

Your examples are examples of "damage limiting". People breaking the law to avoid circumstances that would be to a more severe disadvantage. Self defense is a key example, at least here, you have to use the "least possible force" to defend yourself. If you have different weapons at your disposal, you have to use the one that does the job (i.e. defend yourself) with the least amount of damage to your attacker (i.e. use the .22 instead of the bazooka).

Classifying the identity of an agent is a privilege we grant to our governments so they can use those agents more efficiently for our benefit. If this privilege is abused, it becomes void. Simple as that. Yes, that agent would have to be uncloaked, since he did display that he does not deserve being protected.

Re:Why prosecute? (1)

metachimp (456723) | more than 6 years ago | (#20139523)

Dude, the Secret Service is part of the Treasury Dept, so she wouldn't be outing a CIA member. Nonetheless, I bet that Bush would declare executive privilege, however, which means she would be SOL in terms of getting justice for the crime committed against her.

Re:Why prosecute? (1)

Moridineas (213502) | more than 6 years ago | (#20139543)

Just FYI Secret Service != CIA.

Secret Service used to be run by Treasury--it's not Homeland Security. Interestingly, I read an article the other day about how due to the huge number of presidential candidates receiving protection that they were running low on investigators to fulfill their other duties--like dealing with counterfeit currency!

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.
Or Roosevelt. Or Clinton. Or any number of other presidents. Plenty of people have been jailed for leaking/selling/whatever classified material--it's often called spying! Furthermore, declaring something classified isn't just something that anyone can go around doing!

Re:Why prosecute? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 6 years ago | (#20139663)

At least to me there is a decisive difference between leaking information to a foreign country (for that country's benefit) or leaking information to the US public for their benefit.

The government needs not be protected from its citizens. The government's sole purpose is to serve and protect its citizens. Its whole reason to exist lies in the fact that these people are supposed to work for the benefit of the people that voted them in. If they work against said people, if they overstep their granted rights, this needs to be published and the culprits have to be removed from office, since they did blatantly show they do not deserve the privileges and trust granted to them.

Re:Why prosecute? (1)

Moridineas (213502) | more than 6 years ago | (#20139691)

At least to me there is a decisive difference between leaking information to a foreign country (for that country's benefit) or leaking information to the US public for their benefit.
The question is, who gets to decide that? I don't disagree, I also think that there is a difference. But if there's a situation where anyone can leak anything just because they feel like it--and without any thought for the consequences--then secrecy is worth nothing!

I DO believe the govt at times needs to keep secrets. I believe that sometimes secrecy is needed to protect the country and citizens. As such, a secret has to actually be secret!

Re:Actions like these distinguish the system (-1, Flamebait)

zeddgara (774986) | more than 6 years ago | (#20139291)

Leakers are not whistleblowers, I applaud the fact that they are going after these people. The same side showing their phony shock faces about desk jockey Valerie Plame being "outed" turn around and decry efforts to uncover the leak of the NSA program, which was far more hurtful to our national security then Plame could of ever been. While I never expect any sort of consistent morality from 9/10'ers it's always fun to point out their hypocrisy, especially when confronted with such an egregious example as this.

Re:Actions like these distinguish the system (1)

purpledinoz (573045) | more than 6 years ago | (#20139443)

I agree that this is a very dangerous step for the US. For the past few years, all the actions that the US government has taken against its people has really turned me off to the possibility of living in the US. Currently, I'm in Germany, where I feel much freer than I do in the US.

Re:Actions like these distinguish the system (5, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 6 years ago | (#20139597)

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

Let's see... (1)

feepness (543479) | more than 6 years ago | (#20139129)

Can I hold my breath for 1 year, 4 months, and 24 days?

Re:Let's see... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20139221)

Yeah, and then get ready to hold it for another four years. We'll let you take a "breather" while she's taking the oath.

Re:Let's see... (2, Insightful)

Entropius (188861) | more than 6 years ago | (#20139267)

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.

Re:Let's see... (1)

syousef (465911) | more than 6 years ago | (#20139439)

Hillary might use your tax money to do the wrong sort of good. Bush is using it to do harm.

If the end result is the same who cares? There's no practical difference between allowing someone stupid without intent to do damage vs someone evil with intent. The results is still the same damage.

Re:Let's see... (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 6 years ago | (#20139689)

I think the difference is the "quality" of evil. If someone's focus is on doing evil, he's usually more efficient at it.

Re:Let's see... (1)

paganizer (566360) | more than 6 years ago | (#20139549)

What about one position voters, like me?
I will vote for whoever is against gun control that has a good chance of winning, or against which ever candidate supports gun control and looks like they are probably going to win, which ever lets me vote for the least Evil Candidate.

I would really like to vote for Ron Paul, but each of the 3 top Dem's has a strong "I will not read anything the founding fathers wrote about the 2nd amendment that fully explains what it means" mindset; I HAVE to vote for whoever is not a Dem and has the best shot at winning.
Unless it's a Bush or a Cheney, of course. I have a 16 year old son, and don't want him getting drafted... if it came to that, I'd probably consider moving to Canada, for reals, if they "won".

It really, really sucks. I can understand what the dems are doing, they know that they are a sure thing for one of their candidates to get in after 7 years of Evil, inc in office, thats the only reason the top 3 dem candidates have a shot in hell at getting elected; Even most KKK-lite types would have a hard time not voting for Obama if Cheney or Jeb Bush showed good in the polls right before the election.

By the way, if you think this is a Troll, or a flame.. please think about it a little bit before you mod me down. I honestly am a primarily Dem-leaning independent, and would vote for a Dem who showed an actual understanding of the 2nd amendment as placed in historical context.

Rebuilding America will take longer than that (4, Insightful)

billstewart (78916) | more than 6 years ago | (#20139259)

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 (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 6 years ago | (#20139679)

I'd rather be a threat to national security and its three letter agencies than to freedom. After all, ain't that why we do all that fighting? Freedom? Isn't that what the whole deal is (officially) about? If you fight for freedom by removing freedom, how can you win?

Because I don't kmow (2, Interesting)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 6 years ago | (#20139161)

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 (2, Informative)

pearlgauss (1138441) | more than 6 years ago | (#20139193)

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.

Re:Because I don't kmow (1)

jrumney (197329) | more than 6 years ago | (#20139239)

So if this judge is convicted, will Bush commute his sentence?

Re:Because I don't kmow (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 6 years ago | (#20139249)

If you break a law in an attempt to show someone else breaking a law, you are still subject to whatever the penalties are for the law that was broken. It may be that during your trial, the court decides that you had no choice but to break the law and not hold you to it. It may also be where the evidence is so obvious that it isn't likely you would lose in court so they never go after you.

In this case, the Whistle blower's policies might not pertain to matters of national security and matters that are top secrete. It would be up to a judge and jury to determine if you should be let lose.

It might seem like a vendetta, But exposing a crooked cop who offers to let you go for half the money you stole from a bank wouldn't negate the fact you robbed the bank. It would be similar with this. Leaking the news to the press or whoever instead of the justice department or some agency who is over seeing or with control over the where the crime might be could very well be a serious crime in itself considering the secrete nature of th program and how we were using it against people we are at war with. .

If they've got warrants, it's "legal" - just dirty (2)

billstewart (78916) | more than 6 years ago | (#20139299)

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.

Objectivity? (-1, Troll)

pearlgauss (1138441) | more than 6 years ago | (#20139175)

"illicit program" uh, how about just "program". There hasn't been enough evidence to say conclusively that there is or was anything "illicit" about it.

Re:Objectivity? (3, Informative)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 6 years ago | (#20139199)

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

Re:Objectivity? (1)

paganizer (566360) | more than 6 years ago | (#20139271)

You know what freaks me out? I can easily see, in the light of this type of story, a time when your post would flag you for investigation.
It's not clear, or the obvious path, and I don't think it will happen. Pure, utter disregard for the Constitution and Justice like this makes me see it as a possibility, though.
I also don't think the next election will make much of a difference, unless everyone running for president except Ron Paul dies the week before the election.

Danger, Will Robinson, Danger! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20139515)

Before you rush out and vote for Ron Paul, thinking he's a libertarian, consider what his agenda is:

- FOR building the Great Wall on the Mexico border, in the best tradition of the Berlin wall and the Israeli wall.
- FOR making abortion illegal (also in the first trimester, and, get this, for rape victims).
- FOR lowering taxes, with the highest tax breaks to those with highest income.
- FOR unconditional support to Israel.
- FOR school prayers and creationism in school. This makes the mind boggle how a pagan can possibly support him.
- FOR unconstitutional wire taps and surveillance without court orders.
- AGAINST international treaties, including being FOR the US being excluded from international courts.
- AGAINST pollution restriction or tax breaks for "green" energy.
- AGAINST minimum income laws.
- AGAINST health care reform or socialized medicine.
- AGAINST same-sex marriage and same-sex adoption.
- AGAINST public education, or minimum level of education.

Yes, he's against the Iraq war because he's a right-wing isolationist, not because he thought Iraq was being unfairly treated.

He's a neo-conservative Christian, even farther to the right than most Bush cronies, and is the most dangerous presidential candidate there is. Just check his congressional voting record for always voting based on his personal agenda and not in line with the party, even when begged to do so by the party whip in order to secure a bargain. As a president, he would not rescind the extra powers Bush has usurped from congress, but use them, far more than even Bush has done. The guy is so dangerous it's not even funny, and the grassroot support he has among techies is just mind-boggling. Do people not see what he is, but believe the BS about him being a libertarian?

Re:Objectivity? (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 6 years ago | (#20139445)

You mean the part that says reasonable or probable cause?

That has always been open to discussion and congress along with the court have moved the targets quite often. The real question is whether the president can move the target of the definition. As far as the constitution is concerned, it doesn't say it is illegal, it says certain conditions have to exist. It is these conditions that are in doubt.

Re:Objectivity? (2, Insightful)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 6 years ago | (#20139301)

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

Re:Objectivity? (1, Funny)

will_die (586523) | more than 6 years ago | (#20139357)

The correct term is preconsentual sex.

Re:Objectivity? (2, Funny)

metachimp (456723) | more than 6 years ago | (#20139511)

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

No, seriously.

Re:Objectivity? (1)

mazarin5 (309432) | more than 6 years ago | (#20139631)

Holy shit, it's no joke:

We have concluded that the acronym U.S.E. (Unplanned Sexual Event), when used regularly to replace the word "rape", will remove the stigma associated with this sometimes unpleasant situation.

From: Bapists From Brownback. [wordpress.com] It's a pro-life thing, apparently.

Wow. Just wow.

Where's the rest of the whistleblowers? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20139209)

Come on, Gonzales keeps hinting at other secret domestic surveillance programs that the President has authorized outside of FISA. (When questioned by Congress, he kept saying he's only answering about THIS PARTICULAR program that has been put under FISA and when asked if there are other domestic spying programs he refused to answer the question).

So where are the other brave souls who will reveal what Pres has been up to? I bet it's a Nixon style spy on your political enemies program, and that Gonzales is issuing a coded threat when he hints at the other domestic spying program.

Am I the only one (4, Interesting)

jon287 (977520) | more than 6 years ago | (#20139255)

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 (4, Informative)

cosmocain (1060326) | more than 6 years ago | (#20139287)

two [wikipedia.org] words [wikipedia.org] ...

"Enabling Act of 1933" would be the Patriot Act (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20139375)

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.

Re:"Enabling Act of 1933" would be the Patriot Act (1)

FlashBuster3000 (319616) | more than 6 years ago | (#20139723)

Correction/Addition:
The burning down of the Reichstag can't be compared with the twin towers, imho.
The Nazis burnt it down themselves and said it were the jews.
Both were the pretended reasons to start murdering many innocent people, though (which i think is what you are aiming at).

*breeze* (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 6 years ago | (#20139265)

Can you feel that chill too?

Wow (4, Insightful)

ta bu shi da yu (687699) | more than 6 years ago | (#20139269)

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 (3, Insightful)

Moridineas (213502) | more than 6 years ago | (#20139625)

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?

From "The Eagle has Landed" (1)

Travoltus (110240) | more than 6 years ago | (#20139279)

to "The Gestapo have Landed".

Are we ready to impeach yet?

What's the problem? (1)

stox (131684) | more than 6 years ago | (#20139303)

Your government only wants to protect you. Unpleasant ideas are the enemy of the state. Relax, be happy, consume.

Sense of perspective (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20139307)

Finding this leak is important, but finding the Valerie Plame leaker isn't. Why wasn't Cheney's or Rove's office raided?

Re:Sense of perspective (2, Insightful)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 6 years ago | (#20139359)

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

Convenient distraction (1)

n dot l (1099033) | more than 6 years ago | (#20139655)

Politics are just a distraction. While they're busy entertaining everyone with their constant bickering over bullshit issues big business is free to do as it pleases - bribing regulators, exporting not just the jobs but also the technology that made the west the world's industrial powerhouse to China, and generally pissing on people's freedom just because they can. It doesn't matter who's elected because, with very few exceptions, they'll be bought within minutes of taking office. Just think of how many millions of dollars worth of donations all the candidates are bragging about right now - you think they're likely to forget where that money came from?

People are fighting the wrong monster. Don't donate to the other candidate just because his hands aren't quite as bloody as the current puppet's - protest the moneyed idiocy that likes the status quo so much. The government can't make Chinese imports safe, but tens of millions of people refusing to waste their money on them might. Assuming those people act before there's nothing but the toxic toothpaste left, that is.

What will they find ... (4, Insightful)

Alain Williams (2972) | more than 6 years ago | (#20139315)

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.

Re:What will they find ... (1)

Moridineas (213502) | more than 6 years ago | (#20139527)

Wow, that's quite some speculation there! You believe that the government will plant illegal stuff on his computer--and that this will be made public, and that he'll claim ignorance of it? Well, let's just see! The brilliant thing is that most/many people DO have illegal things on their computers, so your prediction (if it can be called that) is really quite silly! We'll see though...

The long and short of it is, leaking classified info is a crime. See Valerie Plame case. Good or bad, still a crime. Maybe the investigators believe foreign influences are involved? Maybe they think Mr Tamm had leaked/sold/whatever more classified info. Who knows--it's all speculation for me. That's the point of an investigation though.

Re:What will they find ... (1)

pedestrian crossing (802349) | more than 6 years ago | (#20139637)

The long and short of it is, leaking classified info is a crime. See Valerie Plame case. Good or bad, still a crime.

OK, so who was indicted for leaking the info on Plame?

Oh yeah, nobody was.

What's your point?

Re:What will they find ... (1)

Moridineas (213502) | more than 6 years ago | (#20139667)

The point was, it was investigated as a crime!

Ultimately it was decided that no crime took place (other than Libby's perjury/obstruction/what not) but you'll note that there was an investigation which took place over many months. That's how investigations go!

Wrong person (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20139361)

They got the wrong person. It was actually a /. user who leaked the information.

Punish the Right Choice (2)

Doc Daneeka (1107345) | more than 6 years ago | (#20139373)

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.

Re:Punish the Right Choice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20139753)

Aiding enemies of the United States by leaking classified operational information is treason.

Happens everywhere (5, Insightful)

Flying pig (925874) | more than 6 years ago | (#20139391)

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 (2, Interesting)

Slashamatic (553801) | more than 6 years ago | (#20139569)

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:Happens everywhere (1)

Moridineas (213502) | more than 6 years ago | (#20139601)

Who will investigate FBI? Congress? Justice Department? the head of national Intelligence? etc...

With regards to the reporter you're talking about... Think about it another way--if YOU were being investigated and somebody leaked details of the case, the investigation, your personal information, etc--details that could one day make or break your case in court, details that were in no way confirmed or guaranteed--would you want the leaker investigated? It's good that in this particular case the reporter got it right--but what if he had received incorrect information that unfairly damned people? What about a right to privacy?

Re:Happens everywhere (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 6 years ago | (#20139653)

It's good that in this particular case the reporter got it right--but what if he had received incorrect information that unfairly damned people? What about a right to privacy?
The police force, as a public entity, has no right to privacy.

Re:Happens everywhere (1)

Moridineas (213502) | more than 6 years ago | (#20139709)

Wow, you're claiming that no government employees can have a right to privacy?

That's pretty wide reaching!! that doesn't seem right that just by having an employer with a "G" in the title a huge number of people lose their rights. Better make corporate employees have the same standards--it's only fair. And now nobody has a right to privacy.

Re:Happens everywhere (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20139721)

The "shot seven times in the head" is UK police newspeak for "shot seven
times in the face, three times in the body and one shot missed".

And they get off without a caution.

Re:Happens everywhere (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20139727)

"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."

Yes and I heard they fed her AIDs juice and did magical experiments on her that gave her a 3rd eye.

Seriously, I don't condone the police cover up, but at the same time I don't think the original event was as wrong as the media afterwards like to make out, for starters if Menezes wasn't here illegally then the police would've actually known who he was and hence known he was not the man they're after. I'm not saying people here illegally deserve to be shot, but I am saying he's as much at fault as the police if he avoids the procedures we have in place to track where immigrants live. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that someone who has slipped off the radar emerging from a building which a terrorist had previously entered that, like it or not has a similar profile to the terrorist, and who immediately heads towards a train station - the targets of the previous days attacks - might in fact be a threat.

Suggesting the journalists girlfriend was locked in a cell with no food or water and a lice infected blanket, is laughable at best. If the lice and no food and drink thing really was true why did they never follow this up through due process, for such human rights abuses they could go straight to the European court of human rights where the British police force has absolutely no influence. If someone claims something it doesn't make it true, if they're willing to push it to the point of putting their money where their mouth is by taking it to the people best placed to deal with such an incident - even if the police blocked the investigation and hence the court ruled against them - at least they'd demonstrated that they felt they'd been wronged. Simply stating something without being willing to back it up demonstrates how full of crap they actually are.

Newsflash (1)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 6 years ago | (#20139411)

shows the administration's misplaced priorities: using FBI agents to track down leakers instead of processing intel

Just like not everybody at your work is a CEO, not everybody at the FBI processes Intel.

Quick question (1)

Eighty7 (1130057) | more than 6 years ago | (#20139427)

Was there any loot in the fridge?

About Time (0, Flamebait)

warp1 (231206) | more than 6 years ago | (#20139467)

It's about time the Bush administration got serious about going after those who leak national security information in an effort to undermine the war on terror.

You i8s3nsitive clod! (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20139503)

survi7al pros pects conglomerate in the

Procedure for installing country control system (1)

nysus (162232) | more than 6 years ago | (#20139609)

Step 1) Put the technological infrastructure in place
Step 2) Place your political friends and allies in charge of the infrastructure
Step 3) Reduce measures to control abuse of they system by claiming it's in the interests of "national security"
Step 4) Undermine the efforts of your political enemies with your newfound power

The path of the wicked. (1)

frup (998325) | more than 6 years ago | (#20139621)

Perhaps someday Bureaucracy and Mr Money will not be so one and the same.
Pain of Salvation - Iter Impius

[Martius, son of Mars]

[Obitus Diutinus]

[Mr. Money:]
I woke up today
Expecting to find all that I sought
And climb the mountains of the life I bought
Finally I'm at the top of every hierarchy
Unfortunately there is no one left
But me

I woke up today
To a world that's ground to dust, dirt and stone
I'm the king upon this withering throne
I ruled every forest, every mountain, every sea
Now there're but ruins left to rule for me
And... you see, it beckons me;
Life turned its back on us
How could you just agree? ...how? I just don't see...

I woke up today
To a world devoid of forests and trees
Drained of every ocean, every sea
Just like a useless brick upon the shore
The morning after the storm
That swept the bridge away
Relentless tide
No anger
Just this relentless time
That calls us all on
But...

I'm never crossing that line
Leaving this world behind
I will stay on my own
On this bloodstained throne
I rule the ruins and wrecks
And the dust, dirt and stone
I rule rage rod and rattling of bones

I am on my own
I am all alone
Everything is gone
Stuck forever here
Already cold

I'm never crossing that line
Leaving this world behind
I will stay on my own
On this bloodstained throne...

I'm never crossing that line
Leaving this world behind
I will stay on my own
On this bloodstained throne
I rule the ruins and wrecks
And the dirt and the dust and the stone
I'm the ruler of rage rod and rust
And the rattling of bones
Ruler of ruin...

So what's the big deal? (4, Funny)

chefmonkey (140671) | more than 6 years ago | (#20139685)

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.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...