Truly brave heroes such as Thomas Tamm, Matthew Diaz, and, I would add, Mark Klein have helped to lift, just a bit, the curtain behind which the Bush Administration has carried out its worst abuses. However, as Glenn points out in the post and as elaborated by multiple commenters in the thread, these actions come at a great personal price, generating huge legal debts in an environment bordering on blacklisting for future employment. Especially given that it is not unreasonable for some contemplating disclosure to wonder if they might actually "disappear", I am given hope by the claims of Seymour Hersh that many people wish to speak with him on January 20.

Here's to hoping that many more come forward at a time when they feel that they may face only legal and not physical consequences. I'd like to think that I would have the courage to come forward when Tamm, Diaz and Klein did. However, I don't think I would criticize those who have waited. Besides fear of physical reprisal, it also is entirely possible that they are waiting for new leadership at the Department of Justice in order to have the best possible chance of appropriate handling of the evidence they bring forward.

Hope I'm wrong.

You're wrong if you expect a legitimate response from Shooter.

Shooter is UT's Pet Troll and he has a dismal record of offering anything but wheeze and crapola. While not quite a waste of skin, he's pretty close.

Glenn...great article as always. I have a question for you or anyone else.

If such a case ever went to court, would a judge simply throw it out, a la Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers?

Dan the Man sprung 7,000 pages of documents labelled "Top Secret", and was chased all over hell's half acre by the FBI and the Nixon goon squads. He was in mortal fear for his freedom. Yet, I seem to recall from my reading of his book "Secrets" that the case was thrown out on the basis of there being no "official secrets" style laws in the US. The 1st amendment, it seemed, reigned supreme. In other words, there were no laws for Ellsberg to have broken; he was the target of an official witch hunt.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if not, would the same logic not apply in this case?

The Coming Rift, Commentary Magazine, Abe Greenwald (see sig)

[…]

Since November’s supposed referendum on Republican ideology, a string of Democratic figures has been sullied by impropriety and entitlement while other members of the party are making an airtight case for the timeliness and resiliency of conservatism. On matters of foreign policy, social policy, and economics, Democratic leadership is largely indistinguishable from the Republican variety. And Democratic voters have noticed. On Saturday, Glen Greenwald complained in the Chicago Sun Times

It's not at all surprising that Republican leaders -- from Dick Cheney and John Bolton to virtually all appendages of the right-wing noise machine -- are unquestioning supporters of the Israeli attack. After all, they're expressing the core ideology of the overwhelming majority of their voters and audience.

Much more notable is the fact that Democratic leaders -- including Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi -- are just as lock step in their blind, uncritical support for the Israeli attack, in their absolute refusal to utter a word of criticism of, or even reservations about, Israeli actions.

Did Greenwald (no relation, by the way) expect a stirring defense of a terrorist organization? Maybe, maybe not, but the important thing is that whatever Reid or Pelosi said (or failed to say) about the Gaza operation, it was troubling to most of those who voted for them. Greenwald noted that “Democratic voters overwhelmingly oppose the Israeli offensive -- by a 24-point margin,” and went on to write, “is there any other position, besides Israel, where a party's voters overwhelmingly embrace one position (Israel should not have attacked Gaza) but that party's leadership unanimously embraces the exact opposite position (Israel was absolutely right to attack Gaza and the U.S. must support Israel unequivocally)?”

[...]

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/the-coming-rift-14270

"going to ban earmarks".

-- ondelette

You're sure he used the word 'ban'? Because, if so, he is indeed talking out of his ass.

But you're right, my bad. I should have ended with the "are you being purposefully obtuse or do you derive pleasure out of posting inane comments over, and over, and over, and over, again."

It depends on which program he was read into I think.

I don't know and I doubt it will be easy to find which programs he was read into and which programs covered the TSP. I think you sign something when you get read into each individual program saying you won't disclose any information shared about the program you are being read into and if you do its punishable by law.

I am not a lawyer nor very familiar with the laws governing these things, these are just my vague recollections of what I was told when I was given a TS:SCI clearance years ago.

The media reports said ban such as this one:(see sig)

Obama says no earmarks, defends Panetta

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/politics_nation/2009/01/obama_says_no_earmarks_defends.html

is that there are so many compelling comments to respond to...and because of that, not enough time to do it.

But, I guess that's a good thing, all in all.

I'll just keep reading with great interest...

Yes, I'm pretty sure that was the exact phrase. I heard it on NPR yesterday in the car. I ended up thinking about it the rest of the way, how can he say that? He's a Constitutional Law guy, and a senator, he knows better. But that's what he said.

Thanks for that. Yes, she does exist...that's what I get for reading the Newsmax article first. It called her Rowley in the lead paragraph, then spelled it Crowley in the rest of the article. I figured the first one was the misspelling and couldn't accurately remember her name myself. :-s