An Ongoing Leak Investigation?

Mike Isikoff reports that the investigation into the leak of the NSA surveillance program is apparently ongoing:

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.

FWIW, per the FEC database Mr. Tamm gave $300 to the DNC in Sept 2004.  That's not much - who remembers Mary McCarthy, a sacked leaker who, with her hubby, gave $9,000 to Dems? - but let's keep it in mind.

MORE:  Clarice Feldman and AJ Strata have more background on Mr. Tamm, and lots of questions.

Comments

[kubob]

A lot of posters seem to be getting sidetracked (purposefully?) into debating the TSP and FISA. If anything the recent vote proves any debate of this matter from the left was political point scoring and that's it. Under the Constitution the President has extraordinary powers to preserve the nation in a time of war, and the threat of constant terrorist attack represents warfare, period. If you are a lib and you don't like it, tough, try to amend the Constitution and see how far you get. The main thing we need to look at here is who is Thomas Tamm tied to and how he was able to act as an agent against a duly elected administration? Those are the questions that need answering.

[cboldt]

Good history of surveillance (from 1700's to 2000). I read this a couple of years ago, and on a quick review (looking for a reference to the 1980's FISC case relating to physical entry) am reminded at what a good primer it is.

Executive Authority for National Security Surveillance Vol. 50 American University Law Review - Aug 15, 2001

Of course, the cases it cites are also good reading (mandatory in order to reach an informed independent opinion), but I must say that I didn't find the law review authors to have misrepresented any case (which is unusual when the article is on an issue of current debate)

[cboldt]

-- A lot of posters seem to be getting sidetracked (purposefully?) into debating the TSP and FISA. --

Well the TSP is directly tied up in the speculation about prosecuting Tamm, and FISA is involved in the debate over the constitutionality/legality of the TSP, so I think it inevitably comes in either as a pseudo-defense to criminal charges or to bolster the contention that TSP activities were in a properly classified realm.

Sort of like IIPA and CIPA came in to Libby's trial, even though the only issues were violations of false statements, perjury and obstruction.

On Tamm, part of the government's prosecution decision (assuming, arguendo that he in fact has violated 18 USC 798, but the NYT hasn't) will be willingness to produce evidence and argument to prove that what Tamm disclosed was "procedures and methods for gathering foreign intelligence."

In that regard, the currently pending consolidated NSA case (hearing today at 2 p.m.) may be a bellwether.

[boris]

mandatory in order to reach an informed independent opinion

On the off chance that I understand your point ...

BS.

Having waded through the sealed case and come to an "informed" opinion almost opposite of assertions made by law degreed libs, lefties and blog pundits, I have come to the conclusion that they will basically lie about rulings and judicial decisions they disagree with. Postmodern pretzel logic is more than adequate to the task given the skill at twisting and spinning on display.

So what are the "uninformed" to do presented with 130 pages of incomprehensible mumbo jumbo with cites up the wazoo? How about thake the easy route just quote a judge? Sure there are judges all over the map but finding another one besides the sealed case I agree with was an easy out ...

The very nature of executive decisions as to foreign policy is political, not judicial. Such decisions are wholly confided by our Constitution to the political departments of the government, Executive and Legislative. They are delicate, complex, and involve large elements of prophecy. They are and should be undertaken only by those directly responsible to the people whose welfare they advance or imperil. They are decisions of a kind for which the Judiciary has neither aptitude, facilities nor responsibility and which has long been held to belong in the domain of political power not subject to judicial intrusion or inquiry

Quoting some judge on the issue simply establishes that there are at least 2 informed sources with authority on my side. (Protection from the charge of being uininformed, not presented as argument from authority.)

Given that what does further dwelling on legal mumbo jumbo accomplish? Other "informed" authorities come down on the issue differently? Duh, so what. If the issue is unsettled then we gets to choose the interpretation that suits.

[boris]

On the better chance that I didn't understand the point ...

The NSA TSP FISA legal issues are so far south of sensible that it is frustrating to watch quibbling over inches for where to draw the line when they're already in the wrong county.

[battery]

Hello, Mike.

[sophy]

We all love game, if you want to play it, please buy cheap rs gold and join us.