| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Lurid Crime Tales- |
| Looking For a Leaker: NSA Leaker that is |
| 2007-08-06 |
| If you can read through all the bias and the misinformation in this article, and read between the lines, there seems to be some serious looking into who leaked the NSA story to the NYTimes. I don't think they were going through this guy's stuff for nothing. Aug. 13, 2007 issue - The controversy over President Bush's warrantless surveillance program took another surprise turn last week when a team of FBI agents, armed with a classified search warrant, raided the suburban Washington home of a former Justice Department lawyer. The lawyer, Thomas M. Tamm, previously worked in Justice's Office of Intelligence Policy and Review (OIPR)—the supersecret unit that oversees surveillance of terrorist and espionage targets. The agents seized Tamm's desktop computer, two of his children's laptops and a cache of personal files. Tamm and his lawyer, Paul Kemp, declined any comment. So did the FBI. But two legal sources who asked not to be identified talking about an ongoing case told NEWSWEEK the raid was related to a Justice criminal probe into who leaked details of the warrantless eavesdropping program to the news media. The raid appears to be the first significant development in the probe since The New York Times reported in December 2005 that Bush had authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on the international phone calls and e-mails of U.S. residents without court warrants. (At the time, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said of the leak: "This is really hurting national security; this has really hurt our country.") A veteran federal prosecutor who left DOJ last year, Tamm worked at OIPR during a critical period in 2004 when senior Justice officials first strongly objected to the surveillance program. Those protests led to a crisis that March when, according to recent Senate testimony, then A.G. John Ashcroft, FBI Director Robert Mueller and others threatened to resign, prompting Bush to scale the program back. Tamm, said one of the legal sources, had shared concerns about he program's legality, but it was unclear whether he actively participated in the internal DOJ protest. The FBI raid on Tamm's home comes when Gonzales himself is facing criticism for allegedly misleading Congress by denying there had been "serious disagreement" within Justice about the surveillance program. The A.G. last week apologized for "creating confusion," but Senate Judiciary Committee chair Sen. Patrick Leahy said he is weighing asking Justice's inspector general to review Gonzales's testimony. Gonzales testified that the differences were not about this program, but something different The raid also came while the White House and Congress were battling over expanding NSA wiretapping authority in order to plug purported "surveillance gaps." 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 gaps. A Justice spokesman declined to comment. -Michael Isikoff |
| Posted by:Sherry |
| #6 just after the no-notice lie detector, good stuff |
| Posted by: rhodesiafever 2007-08-06 18:36 |
| #5 Since everything at NSA is compartmented AND employees are subject to no-notice lie detectors, I would bet they already know who. The good part of this story is that Congress made into law the very practice that all the Donks were crying about pre-eelection. If you hear about a former NSA employee(s) having a bad traffic or home accident, then you'll know that they gave him/her/them a choice. Personally I would support a secret trial after which they hang said offenders from one of the many parking lot light outside Ops 2A/2B. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2007-08-06 18:31 |
| #4 Six weeks later, the FBI was dispatched to Bernabei's office to retrieve it. But by then she had passed out copies to five other lawyers, a Washington Post reporter and two Al-Haramain directors - al-Buthi and Pirouz Sedaghaty, also known as Pete Seda. Obviously, Bernabei seems to have had few compunctions about distributing a document with TOP SECRET "stamped on every page". Isn't an officer of the American court system legally obliged to protect state secrets? This skank needs to be hauled up before a legal review board for violation of ethics. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-08-06 17:51 |
| #3 IMHO, take the sumbitch to Iraq, put him out back of a Mosque with a Sign in Arabic saying "Muhammed screwed pigs", make sure there is a very large supply of paving stones nearby, shoot novocaine into his tongue so he cannot talk but can still scream, and kneecap him with a .22 to make sure he cannot run for it. I want him killed slowly and painfully. You have no idea the damage someone like this has done. If these allegations are true, then this person is one of the few in the world that I would gladly beat to death with my bare hands. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2007-08-06 17:30 |
| #2 Now, the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is getting involved AP Reporting SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- In open court and legal filings it's referred to simply as "the Document." Federal officials claim its contents are so sensitive to national security that it is stored in a bombproof safe in Washington and viewed only by prosecutors with top secret security clearances and a few select federal judges. The Document, described by those who have seen it as a National Security Administration log of calls intercepted between an Islamic charity and its American lawyers, is at the heart of what legal experts say may be the strongest case against the Bush administration's warrantless eavesdropping program. The federal appeals court in San Francisco plans to hear arguments in the case Aug. 15. The charity's lawyer scoffs at the often surreal lengths the government has taken to keep the Document under wraps. "Believe me," Oakland attorney Jon Eisenberg said, "if this appeared on the front pages of newspapers, national security would not be jeopardized." Eisenberg represents the now-defunct U.S. arm of the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, a prominent Saudi charity that was shut down by authorities in that kingdom after the U.S. Treasury Department declared it a terrorist organization that was allegedly funding Al-Qaida. He and his colleagues sued the U.S. government in Portland, Ore.'s federal court, alleging the NSA had illegally intercepted telephone calls without warrants between Soliman al-Buthi, the Saudi national who headed Al-Haramain's U.S. branch, and his two American lawyers, Wendell Belew and Asim Ghafoor. Unlike dozens of other lawyers who have sued alleging similar violations of civil liberties stemming from the Bush administration's secret terrorism surveillance program, Eisenberg's team had what it claimed to be unequivocal proof: the Document. In 2004, as the Treasury Department was considering whether to include the group on its list of terrorist organizations, Al-Haramain's Washington lawyer, Lynne Bernabei, asked to see the evidence. That's when, in a case of bureaucratic bungling, Treasury officials mistakenly handed over the call log - which has the words "top secret" stamped on every page - along with press clippings and other unclassified documents deemed relevant to the case. Six weeks later, the FBI was dispatched to Bernabei's office to retrieve it. But by then she had passed out copies to five other lawyers, a Washington Post reporter and two Al-Haramain directors - al-Buthi and Pirouz Sedaghaty, also known as Pete Seda. Still, the lawyers were unsure what they'd been given until December 2005, when The New York Times published a story exposing the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program. The attorneys involved in the Al-Haramain case suddenly realized that the call log was proof their clients had been eavesdropped on, and they sued. An Oregon judge soon ordered Eisenberg and his colleagues to turn over all copies, but in an odd legal twist, U.S. District Court Judge Garr King allowed the lawsuit to go forward with Eisenberg's team forced to rely on their memories of the Document. Even the laptop computer Eisenberg used to draft legal documents citing the Document is scheduled to be scrubbed clean by government agents Wednesday. Three judges in the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will now decide whether the wiretapping program authorized shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks was illegal. Each time the judges want to view the Document, a Department of Justice "court security officer" hand carries it from Washington to San Francisco, then returns with it and any notes the judges made that are deemed sensitive, according to court documents. DOJ spokesman Dean Boyd declined to comment on the case or the handling of the Document. Even without the Document itself, legal observers say Eisenberg's case may have the best chance of succeeding among the many legal challenges to the wireless wiretapping program, which the Bush administration discontinued earlier this year. Belew and Ghafoor, the two lawyers whose calls were allegedly intercepted by NSA, appear to be the only U.S. citizens with actual proof that the government eavesdropped on them. They're demanding $1 million each from the federal government and the unfreezing of Al-Haramain's assets. The 9th Circuit has scheduled arguments for Aug. 15 on the administration's request to dismiss the Al-Haramain case and another lawsuit by telecommunication customers who allege logs of their calls were illegally accessed by the NSA. In court papers filed last year, then-National Intelligence Director John Negroponte and NSA Director Lt. Gen. Keith Alexander urged a judge to toss the case because to defend it would require the government to disclose "state secrets" that would expose the United States' anti-terrorist efforts. Last month, the Bush administration reiterated its position in court documents submitted to the appeals court urging dismissal of the case. "Whether plaintiffs were subjected to surveillance is a state secret, and information tending to confirm or deny that fact is privileged," the filing stated. More than 50 other lawsuits pending before a San Francisco federal judge are awaiting the appeals court's ruling in the two cases, but none have the kind of hard evidence Al-Haramain purports to have - through its lawyers' recollections of the call log - that warrantless eavesdropping of American citizens occurred. "The biggest obstacle this litigation has faced is the problem showing someone was actually subjected to surveillance," said Duke University law professor Curtis Bradley. But he said the Al-Haramain lawsuit "has a very good chance to proceed farther than the other cases because it's impossible for the government to erase (the lawyers') memories of the document." |
| Posted by: Sherry 2007-08-06 16:35 |
| #1 Which is more important, a leak that provided our enemies to change their tactics, making it harder to trace their movements and discover their intent, or sending the FBI to find that leaker? The NY Slimes is part of the problem. Where are the AH-64s with Hellfires targeting Times Square? |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2007-08-06 15:48 |