Wiretap Whistleblower, a Life in Limbo?

Newsweek has an interesting report on Thomas M. Tamm, the individual who blew the whistle on the Federal Government's warrantless wiretaps. The piece takes a look at some of the circumstances leading up to the disclosure and what has happened since. "After the raid, Justice Department prosecutors encouraged Tamm to plead guilty to a felony for disclosing classified information — an offer he refused. More recently, Agent Lawless, a former prosecutor from Tennessee, has been methodically tracking down Tamm's friends and former colleagues. The agent and a partner have asked questions about Tamm's associates and political meetings he might have attended, apparently looking for clues about his motivations for going to the press, according to three of those interviewed."

Comments

Don't take freedom for granted

[alain94040]

Very chilling. Do not take your freedom for granted. I'll share my personal story to show how quickly a thriving democracy can turn into an oppresive regime, here in the US.

Remember the times that led to the invsasion of Iraq? American flags on every highway overpass?

I just happened to be in the process of getting my green card, which means my future was at the mercy of a faceless US government bureaucrat. A rejection and I'd have to pack with my family (including two US born children) and find another place in the globe to settle.

I had published a couple of letters to the editors in the San Jose Mercury News, discussing politics. I was reading foreign media which were hinting that US intelligence on Iraq WMD was bogus. Guess what? I stood very quiet, very silent. Who knows who was listening and how far the goverment was willing to go to silence dissent. If it had been just me, I would have stood up and fought for my rights, but with my family in mind, I decided to cave.

Think about this for a second: the best place on earth, and still scared of what the government might do to me. Call me paranoid, but it felt like a very real threat. It's only in the last two years or so, with Obama rising, that the oppressive feeling has left.

--
http://fairsoftware.net/

Re:Don't take freedom for granted

[Lumpy]

and it's not unexpected. If you blow the whistle on illegal activities the perpetrators of the crime will harass you and your family to pay you back.

The feds are simply punishing him and his family for outing their illegal activities. nothing different than what the organized crime people will do... well except they kill everyone, the Feds are not at that level yet.

Re:Don't take freedom for granted

[Smidge204]

Dude commits a felony and they go after him for it and that is "chilling"? Howso?

It's chilling because you have to break the law in order to even report another (arguably greater) crime, and there is absolutely no consideration for the whistleblower during his own persecution.

Where on the scale of criminal law does broad scale warrantless wiretapping fall?
=Smidge=

Re:Don't take freedom for granted

[0xdeadbeef]

You gotta love the freeper mentality: "You believe that the government in the continental US is as degenerate and unaccountable as our military in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay? You're paranoid!"

Look at history: COINTELPRO, agents provocateurs, enemies lists, McCarthyism.

Six years ago a radio station had children stomping on and setting fire to Dixie Chicks albums because they were ashamed of the president, unwittingly reenacting one of the funniest scenes from Starship Troopers. Who knew how far it would go? Who knew how stupid and paranoid the government would become? If the citizenry was any indication, very. After 9/11, our country was on the short bus to crazytown.

Re:Don't take freedom for granted

[CFTM]

But being an ideologue is so much fun!

Seriously, Obama had an opportunity to set himself apart when Telco immunity came to the floor but he joined with rank and file on this issue. Government, on both sides of the isle, has no desire to ever give power up.

Re:Don't take freedom for granted

[Antique Geekmeister]

It _is_ chilling. The man revealed a major set of constitutional violations, by the NSA, in collaboration with AT&T. There are various basic laws that _required_ him to report such felonies. And it is exactly such abuses that the freedom of the press was designed to encourage the revelation of.

The man deserves a Medal of Honor.

Re:Don't take freedom for granted

[Adambomb]

Oh come off it? Those of us outside your country have long enough memories to remember that Bush did not give PERMISSION to the NSA but ORDERED the NSA to perform these wiretaps.

I sincerely hope that was ignorance not spin you were displaying there.

Re:Don't take freedom for granted

[pudge]

I sincerely hope that was ignorance not spin you were displaying there.

With the knowledge and implied consent of the leaders of both houses of Congress (including Democrats); with the stated legal approval of the head of the FISA Court of Appeals; with the legal justification written by the Clinton Justice Department.

I am not in favor of the practice. I'm against it. But I am not blind enough to say this was all Bush.

Re:Don't take freedom for granted

[Sleepy]

>Um. That had nothing to do with the government. You actually think the CIA orchestrated the burning of Dixie Chicks albums? You think they give a damn about the Dixie Chicks?

Wow. You deliberately and methodically misconstrue what he said in a way that's designed to discourage and wear down all intelligent discussion.
Congratulations.

Actually, your post is the BEST example so far of the mentality behind those burnings.

Re:Don't take freedom for granted

[pudge]

Well, the point is that people were being organized to stomp on Dixie Chicks albums because they disagreed with Bush.

Good for them. Free expression is a wonderful thing.

The point of democracy and free speech is that, if you disagree with someone, you should be free to do so openly -- with an intention of opening discussion on the matter.

Not at all. The right of Free Speech has nothing to do with intent, unless that intent is criminal.

The point of the Dixie-Chicks effigy burning was to suppress the dissension

Even if it was, as long as it didn't take the form of illegal initimidation or some other form of force, it is a protected right.

(and to discourage anybody else from disagreeing with bush)

Maybe. So what? How is that a bad thing? Isn't that what Keith Olbermann does every night, but from the left, by abusing anyone who says something he disagrees with?

and not to engage in a sane discussion of why Bush was right or the Dixie Chicks were wrong.

Again, the First Amendment has nothing to do with that. See, what you don't get is that in order for this to make sense, the government itself would need to be the arbiter of what is a "sane discussion." And that itself would have a serious chilling effect on speech. So no, intentions are beside the point entirely.

Last year, a friend of mine spent some time down in the US (I'm in Canada) on a course, and she found herself nervous about suggesting to someone that not everybody liked Bush. The scary thing was, that after she made that comment, a number of other people in the course came to her in private and noted that they too were afraid to simply suggest that Bush was unpopular.

Where I live in the U.S., it's completely opposite: you can become a social outcast for suggesting you LIKE Bush. So I guess this is proof that the left is trying to suppress free speech?

That was, I suggest, both the intent and the effect of vilifying the Dixie Chicks over what was simply a side remark about personal beliefs. That intent, and effect are both detrimental to a democratic society ... anathema, even.

Not remotely. Worse, YOUR attempt to demonize and villify people for expressing themselves is doing precisely what you are attacking.

"apparently looking for clues about his motivation

[PrescriptionWarning]

here's a clue: he believed it was illegal

Motivations?

[MosesJones]

Errr I'm taking a massive shot in the dark here but I'm guessing that the motivation would be

CONCERN ABOUT THE MASSIVE SUBVERSION OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND THE CONSTITUTION

I mean I know its a crazy mad sort of idea that someone might be motivated by decency and the desire for what is right rather than some political ideology. When George W. Bush and Dick Cheney talk about the principles of American freedom... well that is what this man has stood up to defend.

How sad that its the defender of freedom who is being shafted, while those who look to subvert the constitution are getting away scot free.

Motives for going to the press?

[arkham6]

How about basic patriotism?

Re:Agent Lawless?

[morgan_greywolf]

What the hell is this Lawless dude's deal anyway? Checking out Tamm's motivations? Oh, I'm sure he must be a terrorist, right?

Fsck that. Tamm reported what he clearly felt was illegal activity being performed by the federal government. As far as I'm concerned, I don't want Lawless spending another red cent of my tax dollars going after Tamm. Tamm is a patriot as far as I'm concerned. We should all stand up and applaud his efforts in exposing this ugly, terrible government corruption. These acts are illegal, going against our highest laws, morals and ideals. The Founding Fathers are rolling in their graves at this immense injustice.

If anyone is a criminal, it's Agent Lawless.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

UnConstitutional

[writerjosh]

I think this statement says it all: "..If somebody were to say, who am I to do that? I would say, 'I had taken an oath to uphold the Constitution'..."

I think that counts for a lot. If the gov is doing something unconstitutional, then it's your duty to uphold that document first. As a gov official, you have an oath to that body of laws first and foremost. Loyalty to gove agencies or executives is secondary at best.

Re:UnConstitutional

[rgviza]

"I had taken an oath to uphold the Constitution"

In the military you swear an oath to obey the commander in chief. In intel agencies you swear an oath of secrecy, like this one for NSA:

" Upon being cleared to protect the sensitive information of the National Security Agency, I subscribe to this oath freely, without mental reservation, and with the full intent to exercise meticulous care in abiding by its items.

        I solemnly swear that I will not reveal to any person any information pertaining to the classified activities of the National Security Agency, except as necessary toward the proper performance of my duties or as specifically authorized by a duly responsible superior known to me to be authorized to receive this information.

        I further solemnly swear that I will report without delay to my security representative the details and circumstances of any case which comes within my knowledge of an unauthorized person obtaining or attempting to obtain information concerning the classified operations of the National Security Agency.

        I fully appreciate and understand that the security of the information and activities of the National Security Agency is of vital importance to the welfare and defense of the United States. I affirm that I am familiar with the provisions of Section 793, 794 and 798, Title 18 United States Code.

        I do hereby affirm any understanding that the obligations of this oath will continue even after severance of my connections with the National Security Agency and that they remain fully binding on me during peacetime as well as during wartime. "

This doesn't mention the constitution... which means NSA plays by a different set of rules than the justice department.

However, as a Justice department appointment, he is *required* by his oath to report what he found the NSA doing. He isn't being a hero, defender of freedom or "whistle blower" he just did his job as he swore, in an oath, that he would....

If the DOJ doesn't like it, maybe they should change their oath and mission so their employees are *allowed* to stay mum when they discover people violating the constitution and bill of rights (which would kind of eliminate them from doing their job).

Then again, maybe the NSA needs to do their job better so people don't find out what they are doing.

Yet again, maybe agencies shouldn't violate the constitution and bill of rights.

If the gov is going to violate it's own rules, maybe it should just burn them and start a totalitarian state of some sort and be done with it. Why beat around the bush (no pun intended)?

-Viz

and clue #2

[MRe_nl]

Government officials of the American Republic swear an oath to the Constitution, NOT to the President or any other individual.

Re:One Day

[nickmalthus]

Yes, Mr. Tamm is a REAL American hero, sacrificing his career and potentially his freedom to preserve and protect the basic rights that are the pillars of our society. As the saying goes, "Evil prospers when good men do nothing." Shame on the cowards at the FBI Justice Department who retaliated against him.

Re:Follow the money

[giorgist]

That is how Aistotle put it 2000 years ago.
He also added that the reason Democracy is a good idea is because in a random pool of people
the bad guys push in random directions depending on their needs.
The good guys push in about the same direction.

The net effect in the long term is in the right direction.

G