And, it was the “interest of the national security” that permitted Bush to write the many signing statements and executive orders that have stripped us of our constitutional rights and the rule of law.

The NSA has been virtually regulation-free and above the law from its beginning. Who dares try to clean it up?

In a so-called “national security” setting, the IG (to whom someone with a complaint or concern would normally turn) is required to contact the heads of the security agencies and at that point, the heads of such agencies can shut down the IG. The IG MUST tell the agency head about the complaint, and if the agency head (Tenet, Hayden etc.) chooses they can tell the IG that he/she is prohibited from “from initiating, carrying out, or completing any audit,inspection, or investigation” by simply saying that national security requires that the investigation be shut down.

There’s no real oversight of a nat sec agency head’s decision to shut down the IG in such a situation. AND there is no protection, in intel/nat sec settings, for the person who went to the IG to start with.

So in a situation where it is pretty clear that the agency heads are involved in the programs, as a practical matter, there is no internal whistleblower route. There have been efforts to try to address that, but they never carry.

To suggest that he abused his position by using his own judgment is ridiculous. It does not take a degree in basketweaving to understand that the “secret” program was illegal and that its perpetrators needed several years of timeout at some government facility. The people involved knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was illegal, but they, in their megalomania, didn’t care. No one has ever seriously suggested that the spy program had any legal basis.

As for those who feel that he is a traitor, I have to question their loyalty to the US. The program Mr. Tramm exposed was as illegal as anything could be, but those having a fit about it being exposed don’t seem to care. Why? Where is their loyalty?

These are just some of the many problems that you get when Congress (and remember it wasn’t just Hoekstra and Roberts – Harman, Pelosi, Rockefeller, Reyes,those aren’t Republicans but they have been as devastating to the rule of law as any Republican you can point to) bends over backwards to immunize criminal behaviour. In large part, they tell not only whistleblowers who reveal the criminal activity, but even more devastatingly, soldiers who would refuse an illegal order, that the behaviour is “allowed” and acceptable and … legalized.

Two years after people sweated blood to get the Dems in office, they are not just an embarassment, they are repulsive.

Unless there are strong, un-circumventable whistleblower protections in the law, then going through channels first is just a good way to paint a big target on your back.

Besides STRONG/ABSOLUTE whistleblower protections, the offices that are theoretically responsible for investigating complaints by erstwhile whistleblowers needs to be made truly independent and beyond the control of the office they are attached to and absolutely beyond the control of the President. In a word, truly independent and free to do what they are in place to do.

During his childhood, he played under the desk of J. Edgar Hoover.

Given what we know about J. Edgar, is this something you want on your resume? Or is Michael just casting more aspersions?