In general, FBI or other government harassment involves a bit more than one's sentence for a crime one is convicted of. And Mr. Tamm is not convicted, or even tried yet.

In the case of Matthew Diaz, Mr. Diaz has made comments that perhaps he deserved his sentence because while he believes it was the right thing to do to inform the world about who was at Guantanamo, he might have gone about it in a better, more legal, manner. But his sentence was 6 months, and what he has been through, call it punishment or just harassment and misery, is much more than that.

So maybe we should ask you: Is what Mr. Tamm is going through a fair implementation of the rule of law?

Furthermore, people here, in general have asked for the investigation and prosecution (or previously impeachment and trial) of Bush and others. That's a perfectly fair thing to ask for given the public evidence. They are now asking for fairness for Mr. Tamm. As has already been mentioned, it isn't clear that classification of a crime is legal in the first place, and it is certainly not the case that classification is legal for the purposes of political coverage. So it isn't clear that Mr. Tamm has committed a crime. Where is the contradiction between asking for fairness under the law with Mr. Bush, i.e. an investigation and possible prosecution, and asking for fairness under the law for Mr. Tamm -- federal employee whistleblower protection at the very least?

The gummint isn't required to get warrants for each party to a conversation before tapping phones with a Title 3 tap. All they need is a warrant for the target. If you're unlucky enough to call that person, they can record what you say to him as well.

I obviously didn't communicate well in my previous post but by "third parties", I meant communications providers not extraneous people caught in a wiretap.

from my original post--

The fourth amendment protects both the target and any third party that is searched when pursuing information on the target. The idea that communications providers, from AT&T to the kid running a mail server in their dorm, somehow have less fourth amendment protections, because they provide communications services, is pernicious and ass backwards.--

The third party is communications providers.

Sands (see previous comment) specified the Holder confirmation hearing. He says that Holder should be asked if waterboarding is torture. If Holder is unequivocal in saying it is, then that will be a sign that some form of investigation is on tap.

But if he fudges on it a la Mukasey/Gonzo, it will be up to other nations to take it up. He mentioned Pinochet as an example of how this could work.

If they retroactively impeach Bush, he could spend all day watching the proceedings on CSPAN, calling in to get to hear is voice on TV once every two months, and provide us here with his endless and prolific comments about how, he, a genuine military retiree, a real ex lifer in the Air Force, no less, has something very important to say about all this, bla bla bla.

Hey, Sarge.

How about Facebook?

There are lots of hot widows out there looking for a stud like you, Sarge, (especially if you come with one of those generous military pensions and plenty of life insurance.)

Thanks for the update on Fertik's question. The last I'd heard it was at the top, and Digby's site and Open Left were continuing to push it. It very much looked to me like it was going to come in at number 1, but folks were speculating about how the votes got "counted."

I can only imagine what Plumb Bob thinks of the question:

Will you appoint a Special Prosecutor — ideally Patrick Fitzgerald — to independently investigate the gravest crimes of the Bush Administration, including torture and warrantless wiretapping?

Dollars to donuts Obama sidesteps it.

Why Does The New York Times Love Hamas? (see sig)

By Steve Emerson, executive director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism and author of 5 books and countless articles on terrorism. His most recent book is Jihad Incorporated: A Guide to Militant Islam in the U.S.

The paper of record refuses to call them terrorists, extols the group’s humanitarian efforts, and whitewashes its behavior during the now-broken cease-fire.

In the past week, the Fourth Estate’s Hamas cheerleaders have stripped away any pretense of being honest or neutral, with The New York Times continuing to take the side of the terrorist group in one of the most shameful journalistic episodes I have ever seen. In following The Times' coverage for the past six months and checking external sources of information, one can see a clear pattern of propagandistic reporting favoring Hamas that selectively suppressed or willfully misrepresented information.

Even The Times knows it has a bias problem. Readers who detected it got a chilling confirmation of their suspicions in the December 13 column by Ombudsman Clark Hoyt. Addressing a public outcry over the paper’s failure to use the term “terrorist” for the attackers who executed some 170 people in Mumbai, India, in late November (and mutilated the six Jews killed in the Chabad House—a fact never reported by The Times), Hoyt quoted several reporters and editors making extraordinary admissions that shed some light on the newspaper’s most recent dispatches from Gaza.

[...]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-01-06/why-does-the-times-love-hamas/full/

The trends are encouraging, but I'm not sure what Obama is going to do about the criminals.

On an insignificant aside, the newer trolls apparently haven't figured out that I follow Jebbie's advice and never feed them. I have far better ways of using my time.

Have you seen this Guardian article? As Chris Floyd says, " You won't see truth like this in an American newspaper..."

Oxford professor of international relations Avi Shlaim served in the Israeli army and has never questioned the state's legitimacy. But its merciless assault on Gaza has led him to devastating conclusions.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/07/gaza-israel-palestine