One of the reasons I’ll never hold a job requiring a security clearance is my strong belief that people like Thomas Tamm are doing the right thing. When the system itself is corrupt, the doing the right thing sometimes requires you to step outside the system.
Amit
MB, I don’t think this is a security clearance issue but rather doing the right thing the wrong way. I have no idea why he approached some Congressional staffer with no understanding of what he was talking about instead of very easily going to the Oversight office at the Agency and raising the issue.
I think he simply did not do his homework on how to go about this and took the very dangerous approach of going to the media with it. I’m all for civil disobedience but this instance did not require it in my opinion.
MB
That may well be true. But given what we’ve learned, I think that the evidence tends to show that the system was corrupt from the top down. What do you do, then?
Amit
take Deep Throat for example, I believe he did the right thing by blowing the whistle on a corrupt administration. But using the word ‘corrupt’ in this scenario I do not think is accurate.
First, no one was profiting from the practice nor was information used to incorrectly charge people with crimes. I think it was a problem with leadership to address a problem by circumventing it instead of solving it. The problem being the red tape involved in target pursuit. But the entire time I believe they were doing what they thought was best to protect the United States. I have my own opinions on how it should have been handled internally but that’s for another day.
MB
Let’s start here:
This Administration – from the very top – violates that oath as a matter of practice. I call that corrupt (and as to whether any information has been used to incorrectly charge someone with a crime, well, I suspect we’ll never find out).
The whistleblower in this case presumably took a very similar (if not the same) oath. When you have an Administration dedicated to violating that oath (again, see Yoo, Addington, Gonzales, et al), I don’t think it’s entirely unreasonable to think it ineffective to complain to some office that – by virtue of the the position you’ve found yourself in – hasn’t been doing its job.
Finally:
Not good enough. Not even close to good enough. See that oath.
Amit
I’m not going to even begin to try to defend this Administration’s interpretation of the Constitution. I was more specifically speaking of the Agency, where I will admit they violated the Constitution. But I disagree with your accusation of them being corrupt. And yes, the fact they thought they were protecting the US in no way justifies what they did but I was more making the point that the motivation was not for personal gain.
Like most problems, the more you know about it the more complicated it becomes. I wish I was at liberty to speak my mind on this issue but I think it will suffice to say a much better solution is/was possible.
MB
Never occurred to me that they were. I do, however, believe that the Agency was perfectly aware of how unconstitutional its actions were. My word for that is corrupt, but we can call it anything we like, I guess.
That I entirely understand. But putting aside the details of this particular case, knowing more about a subject/area sometimes makes it hard to see the plain wrongness of something (see, e.g., the relationship between Congress and lobbyists. I can (and have) argue that there’s nothing wrong with each individual interaction. But the result, as a whole? Fucked.)
Amit
I’m not sure the Agency was perfectly aware of their unconstitutional actions. The Fourth Amendment protects against “unreasonable” search and seizures of people’s persons, houses, papers, and effects.
“unreasonable” is a tricky word. If a state trooper pulls you over for a speeding ticket but then smells alcohol on your breath is it unreasonable to give you a sobriety check as well? Likewise, is it unreasonable to tap a phone that has received calls from a known terrorist? Besides, who owns a phone call? Is it the person or the phone company? Are my comments on this blog my property or yours?
New technologies require us to re-examine our laws and make sure we stay on top of it so our law enforcement has a clearer understanding of what is allowed. Its a fascinating topic to me and I think you owe me an essay and drink anyway so let’s discuss in detail at one of the fine establishments in Arlington.
MB
Luckily, there are hundreds of years of jurisprudence on that very topic.
They knew. Without question. And so did the phone companies. Thus, among other things, the immunity battles.
~
Homework? Essays? Me?
(But yes, Jay’s soon.)
Amit
I hardly think we have hundreds of years of experience when it comes to investigating your Facebook page before getting a govt job (i.e. Obama administration policy) or whether a man can divorce his wife with a cell phone text message. These new technologies require us to re-look at our laws and reevaluate the meaning of “unreasonable”. Its simply not that black and white.
anyway, Jay’s sounds good but if I get any “you ain’t from around here” looks we’re running over to Eleventh.
MB
Those examples are irrelevant. We are talking about a very specific meaning of the word “unreasonable” in the context of searches by the Federal government and how they are governed by the Constitution. We shouldn’t be fooled by the BS that the Admin and Congress were shoveling in the FISA rewrites – that somehow the transmission of private conversations by new means was beyond the reach of the Constitution. It’s like arguing that the framers were only interested in protecting letters written with quills – anything set in writing with that newfangled ballpoint technology is fair game!
~
Heh. I’ll wait to a share a story with you until we’re sitting at the bar.