12 Years Later, Warrantless Wiretaps Whistleblower Facing Misconduct Charges (usnews.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

12 Years Later, Warrantless Wiretaps Whistleblower Facing Misconduct Charges (usnews.com)

Posted by timothy on Thursday January 28, 2016 @06:09AM from the ethics-as-amusement dept.

cold fjord writes: Former Justice Department attorney Thomas Tamm sparked an intense public debate about warrantless surveillance nearly a decade before Edward Snowden. Tamm tipped reporters in 2004 about the use of nonstandard warrantless procedures under the Bush administration for intercepting international phone calls and emails of Americans. New York Times reporters James Risen and Eric Lichtblau used Tamm's revelations to help them win a Pulitzer Prize. Barack Obama criticized the program and the Obama administration Justice Department announced in 2011 that it would not bring criminal charges against him. Unfortunately Tamm is now facing disciplinary hearings before the D.C. Office of Disciplinary Counsel which prosecutes the D.C. Bar's disciplinary cases. Tamm is facing ethics charges that could result is his disbarment, revoking his law license. Tamm is alleged to have "failed to refer information in his possession that persons within the Department of Justice were violating their legal obligations to higher authority within the Department" and "revealed to a newspaper reporter confidences or secrets of his client, the Department of Justice." Tamm currently resides in Maryland where he is a public defender. The effect of the D.C. case on him there is unclear. Tamm's attorney, Georgetown University law professor Michael Frisch, says the delays seen in this case are not unusual in D.C., it can take years for matters to play out. Another of Frisch's clients, who exposed the interrogation of "American Taliban" John Walker Lindh, believes the prosecution is political persecution.

96 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Here's something worth crowdfunding. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-28 06:13 · Score: 5, Interesting

Everyone chip in $10, we'll pay his legal bills and whatever is left over goes to him, regardless of how things turn out.
1. Re:Here's something worth crowdfunding. by chaboud · 2016-01-28 06:19 · Score: 1
  
  So how does this work? Is a lawyer supposed to break their client's confidence or maintain a secret in the executive that, by its non-disclosure, perpetuates an an ongoing criminal conspiracy in violation of the constitution?
  And, yes, I'll gladly chip in $10 for this guy.
2. Re: Here's something worth crowdfunding. by bill_mcgonigle · 2016-01-28 06:30 · Score: 2
  
  Check out The Madison Fund - a strategy for treating government as an insurable risk.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
3. Re:Here's something worth crowdfunding. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-28 06:44 · Score: 0
  
  So how does this work? Is a lawyer supposed to break their client's confidence or maintain a secret in the executive that, by its non-disclosure, perpetuates an an ongoing criminal conspiracy in violation of the constitution?
  And, yes, I'll gladly chip in $10 for this guy.
  Ah, this is why morals are surgically removed after you pass the bar exam, he must have been sick that day.
4. Re:Here's something worth crowdfunding. by NotDrWho · 2016-01-28 07:27 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Somehow, by law, he was supposed to simultaneously blow the whistle on criminal activity, not participate in criminal activity, and not break the confidence of his "client" who was engaging in said criminal activity.
  Proving once again that a whistleblower is almost ALWAYS screwed over no matter how they handle it.
  
  --
  SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
5. Re:Here's something worth crowdfunding. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-28 07:50 · Score: 0
  
  "Sounds great! You first though."
  -Everyone ever
6. Re:Here's something worth crowdfunding. by Richard+Dick+Head · 2016-01-28 07:52 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Everyone chip in $10
  What bugs me is that the common voter should even have to consider supporting this person in lieu of a non-corrupt government. Is there not a single earnest populist left in Capitol Hill? A decent president would be quick to sign a pardon and put this to rest.
  
  This is why if you are eligible and registered to vote in the USA, you should be voting straight-ticket non-incumbent and non-establishment.It is no secret our government is fcked, even to people who have never visited the states. The party does not matter, this year I'll be withholding my party loyalties and voting Libertarepublicrateen...for whomever has a chance of winning, and has the best non-establishment credentials. There is no protection for whistleblowers from todays crop of empty suits and Pinocchios.
  
  --
  The real path to male liberation
7. Re:Here's something worth crowdfunding. by Gravis+Zero · 2016-01-28 07:55 · Score: 1
  
  Everyone chip in $10, we'll pay his legal bills and whatever is left over goes to him, regardless of how things turn out.
  quiet down! you're interrupting the circus! ;)
  
  --
  Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
8. Re:Here's something worth crowdfunding. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-28 08:00 · Score: 0
  
  I don't see the part that says to report wrongdoing to journalists. Specifically, this: "However, disclosures of information specifically prohibited by law or required by Executive Order to be kept secret are protected
  only when made to an OIG, OSC, or Congress."
9. Re:Here's something worth crowdfunding. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-28 08:06 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  He reported the wrongdoing to the press because he knew damn well that if he had reported the crimes to the same federal government that was DOING the crimes, it would have all been hushed-up and he would have likely been fired for some trumped-up reasons (allowing them to call him a "disgruntled employee" if he then went to the press later).
10. Re:Here's something worth crowdfunding. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-28 09:09 · Score: 0
  
  Everyone chip in $10
  What bugs me is that the common voter should even have to consider supporting this person in lieu of a non-corrupt government. Is there not a single earnest populist left in Capitol Hill? A decent president would be quick to sign a pardon and put this to rest.
  Dude, read.
  
  the Obama administration Justice Department announced in 2011 that it would not bring criminal charges against him
  So, the president should have the authority to prevent a state (or District of Columbia) from disbarring a lawyer?
11. Re:Here's something worth crowdfunding. by Obfuscant · 2016-01-28 09:49 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Somehow, by law, he was supposed to simultaneously blow the whistle on criminal activity, not participate in criminal activity, and not break the confidence of his "client" who was engaging in said criminal activity.
  How is telling the people who are running the department you work for something they already know "break[ing] a confidence"?
  As a lawyer, he had an ethical requirement to tell the people who were paying him that what they were doing was wrong, and not do it himself. That's breaking no confidences. Yes, it might result in him getting fired, but by not following the legal ethics rules he was breaking those rules and promoting the illegal activity. If the ethics were important, he'd not continue working there anyway.
  Instead, he broke confidences by telling an outside party. That doesn't absolve him of the responsibility to tell his client of the problem.
  It would appear that the ethical course of action would be to: 1) tell your employer/client, 2) quit because you really do value the ethics and not just pay lip service to them, and then 3) blow the whistle to the newspaper.
  
  Proving once again that a whistleblower is almost ALWAYS screwed over no matter how they handle it.
  This situation is a bit different than the vanilla whistleblower, in that he had an ethical obligation to discuss this issue with his employer/client because he is a lawyer. Had he been a run of the mill clerk, he'd not be in trouble with the bar association for breaking legal ethics. As a lawyer, he had a higher standard to keep, and didn't. Notice that it isn't the government acting against him, it is his professional organization.
12. Re:Here's something worth crowdfunding. by Darinbob · 2016-01-28 09:50 · Score: 2
  
  This has nothing to do with any criminal court case. He's facing a disciplinary review by a legal bar association, a private entity. He can't be pardoned for that by anyone in any government, the private entity can kick him out of their club if they want. He was already pardoned for the original revelations. So the worst that happens is that he can't easily practice law in DC. Not a complete career killer but it's definately painful. To the private entity, protecting your clients is more important than morals, ethics, or even the law.
13. Re: Here's something worth crowdfunding. by Type44Q · 2016-01-28 09:51 · Score: 1
  
  If I was a paid shill and that was all I could come up with, I suppose I'd post anonymously, too...
14. Re:Here's something worth crowdfunding. by Darinbob · 2016-01-28 09:57 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry.. He wasn't pardoned, however the government declined to bring charges.
15. Re:Here's something worth crowdfunding. by Obfuscant · 2016-01-28 10:02 · Score: 1
  
  A decent president would be quick to sign a pardon and put this to rest.
  
  He can be pardoned for criminal activity, but the bar association can still disbar him for it.
16. Re: Here's something worth crowdfunding. by tnk1 · 2016-01-28 10:42 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  If I was a paid shill and that was all I could come up with, I suppose I'd post anonymously, too...
  And today we present the Shill Gambit.
  The shill gambit is a type of ad hominem or poisoning the well logical fallacy, wherein one party dismisses the other’s argument by proclaiming them to be on the payroll of some company.
  Sometimes known as the Big Pharma Shill Gambit or the Monsanto Shill Gambit. The shill gambit is used fallaciously when the only “evidence” given of such a connection to a big company or government is the endorsement of the position of the government or company, without any other evidence–the implication is that they provide that endorsement only because they receive some sort of compensation from the company or other agency.
  On the other hand when such conflict of interest is both demonstrated by verifiable evidence and can be shown to interfere with a person’s judgement of the evidence, then it’s no longer a logical fallacy.
  http://www.skepticalraptor.com...
  http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/S...
17. Re: Here's something worth crowdfunding. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-28 11:13 · Score: 0
  
  The claim of paid shill is far more generous than the IQ of 76 the post would otherwise earn.
18. Re:Here's something worth crowdfunding. by Stolpskott · 2016-01-28 11:56 · Score: 2
  
  At least in theory, what he is supposed to do is go to his direct superior or a direct superior of the individuals who were involved in the conduct and say "This client of ours is involved in illegal/unethical/unconstitutional (delete as appropriate) conduct. This client happens to be the Department of Justice".
  Except that he was working for the DoJ at the time, so painting the DoJ as the "client" in this case seems at first face to be a tenuous thread on which to hang the case against him, and if it really was that tenuous, his lawyer would have no trouble breaking the argument. So I am guessing that there is something in the DoJ employment contracts or in some recent legal precedent that allows the DC Bar to go after him, because if there is one thing that a lawyer hates more than an open-and-shut case requiring little billable work, it is an honest lawyer who makes the rest of them look as bad as they really are. So now that there is some basis on which to charge Tamm, the DC Bar are going to go for it. Unless of course there is some other political consideration at play, and the case itself is just a front - a vehicle for someone to run for political office, perhaps.
  Anyway, the idea is that Tamm should have gone to his superiors or the superiors of the person(s) involved in the scheme and raised the issue. And after a verbal discussion, he should have put the issue in writing, both email and printed version, and kept a copy or 20 of each for himself. He could then be fired for any number of reasons, from the color of his tie or a supposed drinking habit, to transmission of confidential documents to outside sources (his own email addresses or physical storage *cough* that the DoJ could not touch without a warrant), thus tainting him as a "disgruntled former employee".
  Then, if there is no action following his escalation, and if he miraculously still has any credibility left following a smear campaign about his (previously un-known) mental health issues - Psych reports from willing doctors attached - he would be justified in going to the press. Except that you would probably find no-one within the DoJ who remembers a meeting with him about this, no record of any email communication about it with anyone inside the DoJ, and so on. So then there is still no validation for his "claim" that he raised the issue with his superiors, and he is right back in the situation he is in now, except that he was fired because of the apparent mental health issues, illegal extraction of documents, and oh by the way we also found evidence on his computer than he is a pedophile with extreme Islamist sympathies.
  Note, I am not saying that all areas of the US Government are hopelessly corrupt and will destroy anyone who tries to disturb their spot at the pig trough. I am sure the US Government has lots of people who genuinely believe they are doing the Right Thing. But given the various oaths that people in Government swear (like "protecting the constitution", etc., etc.), I am damned sure that there are a lot of people who are not fulfilling those oaths, even if they do believe they are doing the Right Thing.
19. Re:Here's something worth crowdfunding. by Khashishi · 2016-01-28 12:09 · Score: 1
  
  Private entity with state-granted powers. Power with none of the responsibility.
20. Re:Here's something worth crowdfunding. by DRJlaw · 2016-01-28 13:24 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Notice that it isn't the government acting against him, it is his professional organization.
  Lawyer here. You're wrong. The professional organization has no power to discipline or sanction. It actually is the government acting against him.
  In most states, lawyer discipline is a bizarre private-court hybrid. A private, bar-association-related disciplinary committe screens the complaint to see if it has potential merit. If it does, the issue becomes public and is referred up. An office of disciplinary counsel will also perform the same function.
  After that, everything gets handled by a quasi-judicial body -- a board of professional conduct, an office of disciplinary counsel, or what have you -- that is made up of attorneys appointed or employed by the state's highest court. It's a trial-like process. If you don't respond, it's not good for you. Quasi-trial. Quasi-appeal.
  If things go poorly (for the lawer), the determination (actually a recommendation) is referred to the state's highest court. That court makes a determination based upon the recommendation, and any objections by the lawyer, and metes out any discipline.
  Summary is this: the "professional organization" can go fly a kite. You do not have to be a member to practice, it has virtually no power over your ability to practice, and its principal use is for education, referrals, networking, and lobbying.
  The quasi-judical review body is no joke. The referral to the Supreme Court of [insert state name here] is really no joke. And that body, my friend, is definitely the government.
21. Re:Here's something worth crowdfunding. by Obfuscant · 2016-01-28 13:38 · Score: 1
  
  And that body, my friend, is definitely the government.
  I stand corrected, thank you.
  The important point, however, is that this is not a criminal proceeding related to the blowing of a whistle, it is due to his failure to follow the ethical rules of the legal profession.
22. Re:Here's something worth crowdfunding. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-28 17:54 · Score: 0
  
  This is why if you are eligible and registered to vote in the USA, you should be voting straight-ticket non-incumbent and non-establishment.
  What vote? The one Diebold already cast for me in their voting machines read-only MS access database?
  Meh, I can stay home in my comfy warm bed and have Diebold cast my vote their way even easier!
23. Re:Here's something worth crowdfunding. by sociocapitalist · 2016-01-28 19:44 · Score: 1
  
  "2) quit because you really do value the ethics and not just pay lip service to them, and then 3) blow the whistle to the newspaper."
  Once you quit you have no credibility with the newspaper as then you are just a disgruntled ex-employee.
  
  --
  blindly antisocialist = antisocial
24. Re:Here's something worth crowdfunding. by sociocapitalist · 2016-01-28 19:46 · Score: 1
  
  Everyone chip in $10
  What bugs me is that the common voter should even have to consider supporting this person in lieu of a non-corrupt government. Is there not a single earnest populist left in Capitol Hill? A decent president would be quick to sign a pardon and put this to rest.
  I think the President can pardon only at the federal level, not state.
  Also, probably can't pardon someone for something they haven't yet been found guilty of.
  
  --
  blindly antisocialist = antisocial
25. Re:Here's something worth crowdfunding. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-28 20:44 · Score: 0
  
  you don't have decent presidents.. that died out once Wilson sold out
26. Re:Here's something worth crowdfunding. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-29 00:31 · Score: 0
  
  Add to that the fact that it's rather hard to whistleblow without getting caught immediately if you've just complained about the exact same thing internally and then quit over that issue.
27. Re:Here's something worth crowdfunding. by cellocgw · 2016-01-29 05:12 · Score: 1
  
  I think the President can pardon only at the federal level, not state.
  Also, probably can't pardon someone for something they haven't yet been found guilty of.
  Guess you weren't paying attention when G.Ford gave RMN a full pardon for all possible misdeeds.
  
  --
  https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
28. Re:Here's something worth crowdfunding. by Obfuscant · 2016-01-29 07:30 · Score: 1
  
  Once you quit you have no credibility with the newspaper as then you are just a disgruntled ex-employee.
  And the newspaper would care exactly why? The allure of being the next Woodward or Bernstein is too strong. And it was the Bush administration.
29. Re:Here's something worth crowdfunding. by ebvwfbw · 2016-01-29 13:16 · Score: 1
  
  Wow, could you run for President?
30. Re:Here's something worth crowdfunding. by sociocapitalist · 2016-01-31 22:31 · Score: 1
  
  I think the President can pardon only at the federal level, not state.
  Also, probably can't pardon someone for something they haven't yet been found guilty of.
  Guess you weren't paying attention when G.Ford gave RMN a full pardon for all possible misdeeds.
  "The pardon power of the President extends only to offenses recognizable under federal law."
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  
  --
  blindly antisocialist = antisocial
Is the US full of morons or what? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-28 06:18 · Score: 1

Wake up and smell the coffee people, deal with this crap before it spreads...no nation has gone down this route of gov bullshit and had its people survive.
1. Re:Is the US full of morons or what? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-28 06:30 · Score: 0
  
  Shut up you ignorant idiot.
2. Re:Is the US full of morons or what? by Psion · 2016-01-28 06:51 · Score: 1
  
  There you go again, Anonymous! Don't you understand you look kinda crazy when you argue with yourself like that?
3. Re:Is the US full of morons or what? by bkr1_2k · 2016-01-28 07:41 · Score: 2
  
  Generally speaking the people, as a general term, survive just fine. It's the governments that usually fall. Unfortunately it often takes several generations.
  
  --
  "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
4. Re:Is the US full of morons or what? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-28 08:27 · Score: 0
  
  Why do you think they need the second amendment so bad? They're far too busy blaming everybody BUT the people calling the shots. Ideally the government should be stopped by legal means first but it's gotten pretty far. How lucky for those in power that the people are so stupid.
5. Re:Is the US full of morons or what? by Darinbob · 2016-01-28 09:55 · Score: 1
  
  This is being done by the DC bar association, which is not a part of the government. The president already pardoned Tamm.
  Sheesh, I know it's a joke that Slashdot doesn't read the articles or even the summaries, but it is just that, a *joke*. Please try to read more than the headline.
6. Re:Is the US full of morons or what? by Darinbob · 2016-01-28 09:59 · Score: 1
  
  (sorry, I'm half moron, there was no pardon, because the government never even brought charges or prosecuted)
12 years later by 110010001000 · 2016-01-28 06:24 · Score: 2

It has taken 12 years to get to this point. There are too many laws, lawyers and it all takes way too much time. I really have a hard time feeling bad for someone who feeds the law machine. Living in DC I am tired of performing Jury Duty on the various courts. Most cases are a complete waste of time and should be decided by a judge or arbitrator.
1. Re:12 years later by AntronArgaiv · 2016-01-28 06:51 · Score: 2
  
  It has taken 12 years to get to this point. There are too many laws, lawyers and it all takes way too much time. I really have a hard time feeling bad for someone who feeds the law machine. Living in DC I am tired of performing Jury Duty on the various courts. Most cases are a complete waste of time and should be decided by a judge or arbitrator.
  Hard to imagine this isn't the government (or a Bush crony) trying to get even (and discourage others form acting in a similar manner).
  When the agency that employs you is doing dirty work, obviously sanctioned at the highest levels, to expect you to report your misgivings to a superior is farcical on the face of it.
  He did the right thing going to the press, because he would have been ignored and fired if he took it up the chain.
2. Re:12 years later by phantomfive · 2016-01-28 06:52 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  There are too many laws, lawyers and it all takes way too much time.
  Maybe it will make you feel better to know then, that if Thomas loses this case, there will be one fewer lawyers in DC. This is a trial for disbarment, not a criminal trial.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
3. Re:12 years later by Jawnn · 2016-01-28 07:05 · Score: 1
  
  There are too many laws, lawyers and it all takes way too much time.
  Maybe it will make you feel better to know then, that if Thomas loses this case, there will be one fewer lawyers in DC. This is a trial for disbarment, not a criminal trial.
  Only in deepest Dumbfuckistan would some drooling dittohead twist things this way. This guy is a hero. What is being done to him is criminal, not his brave actions to expose our government's crimes.
4. Re:12 years later by qeveren · 2016-01-28 07:35 · Score: 1
  
  Everyone hates lawyers... until they need one themselves.
  
  --
  Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
5. Re:12 years later by phantomfive · 2016-01-28 07:41 · Score: 2
  
  I don't know, in my experience, people still tend to hate lawyers after they need one. Sometimes they hate them more.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
6. Re:12 years later by tnk1 · 2016-01-28 10:58 · Score: 1
  
  While I agree that law should be more efficient, sometimes you don't want it's enforcement to be *too* efficient.
  Although I am not really sure where I stand on this, theoretically a judge, who is often a careerist, will frequently decide based on the case in the manner his colleagues prefer so that he receives preferment and does not receive scorn for his action. He will hand out sentences based on guidelines he doesn't necessarily believe in because of non-legislative "rules" created by the judiciary itself. He may well consider a case to be completely unjust, but will enforce the law as written because that is his job.
  A jury on the other hand, may determine that the law was unfair and potentially nullify at that level.
  Jury nullification is somewhat ambiguous as to its legitimacy, but I have to say that I'd prefer a jury nullifying a law when the other option is the people picking up guns and rebelling over it. Sometimes you need the lawyers to realize that the law isn't everything.
  I do understand that courts that operate with only judges and professional jurors do exist and work in places like Europe, but Europe does not have a long history of judicial independence. Any set of justices can become captive to either a government or to a principle. The US courts are no different in that regard and I would prefer there to at least remain a popular check on their power which will tend towards the defendant going free.
Circular lies ... by gstoddart · 2016-01-28 06:29 · Score: 4, Insightful

So, it's a crime to not report evidence of wrong doing to the people who are committing the wrong doing so they can bury the evidence of the wrong doing?
Right, that totally makes fucking sense.
This is why Bush refused to give whistle blower protection to government employees .. so nothing would change.

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
1. Re:Circular lies ... by penguinoid · 2016-01-28 06:45 · Score: 1
  
  This is why Bush refused to give whistle blower protection to government employees .. so nothing would change.
  As if Barrak "I'm not Bush" Obama was any better.
  
  --
  Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
2. Re:Circular lies ... by Aighearach · 2016-01-28 06:46 · Score: 1
  
  No, the summary says it is an ethics violation punishable by his civilian professional association. Crimes are punished by the government and have different consequences.
3. Re:Circular lies ... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-28 07:13 · Score: 0
  
  Which is still circular logic. It's the same idea that civil suits brought against money (not people who possess or own the money) are okay because it's not criminal and a person isn't involved. Given one can't practice law without a license, this action about ethical violations is inherently to take away from someone something they otherwise rightfully would possess. I mean, what next? A "corporation" created by the government that can sue people for whatever it likes and courts that rubber stamp the case? See, not criminal so it must be okay. And then they can be charged with grand theft auto, trespassing, etc.
  It's all patently absurd not because in theory an ethics board for lawyers or requiring licensing of lawyers is per se a bad idea but this is obviously political manipulations that go beyond simple trying to enforce standard, accepted rules.
4. Re:Circular lies ... by x_t0ken_407 · 2016-01-28 07:22 · Score: 2
  
  Right? No conflict of interest there whatsoever, yeah? /s
  SMFH.
5. Re:Circular lies ... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-28 07:26 · Score: 0
  
  Barack "I'm not Bush" Obama is on his way out...you should look at a calendar once in awhile.
6. Re:Circular lies ... by parkinglot777 · 2016-01-28 07:36 · Score: 1
  
  What you are talking about is not circular logic, but it is a parallel situation/procedure. Your post shows that you are against government and even go further to give a slippery slope fallacy...
7. Re:Circular lies ... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-28 08:24 · Score: 0
  
  Well, Obama *did* decline to prosecute the whistle-blower, even though the disclosure was technically done improperly.
  That sounds at least a little bit better.
8. Re:Circular lies ... by Darinbob · 2016-01-28 10:03 · Score: 1
  
  However the executive branch under Obama also publically announced it would not charge Tamm with any crime. They could have done this without an announcement if they just wanted the headache to go away; though maybe cynically you could say they felt the need to show a change in attitude after Snowden's revelations.
9. Re:Circular lies ... by Darinbob · 2016-01-28 10:10 · Score: 1
  
  You can sort of practice without the licence. In DC you could not appear before any courts there, but you might still be able to provide legal advice depending up on the rules in DC. You can also practice law and appear before the courts in Virginia and Maryland, so it's not a career killer and he wouldn't have to relocate though it's certainly a step back.
10. Re:Circular lies ... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-28 16:35 · Score: 0
  
  You can also practice law and appear before the courts in Virginia and Maryland, ...
  Can you provide a citation on that? Because if you're right, then I stand corrected. But AFAIK, there aren't any States that allow an unlicensed lawyer (although there might be non-lawyer legal positions that would still be available at severely reduced pay).
Known NSA Sympathizer, cold fjord by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-28 06:32 · Score: 2, Funny

says Snowden should have gone through proper channels. Lulz.
1. Re:Known NSA Sympathizer, cold fjord by Alain+Williams · 2016-01-28 06:43 · Score: 1
  
  Snowden tried, was ignored, went public.
2. Re:Known NSA Sympathizer, cold fjord by davester666 · 2016-01-28 07:50 · Score: 1
  
  LIES! The gov't has very clearly said that they have not found any evidence that he tried to report any wrongdoing.
  
  --
  Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
3. Re:Known NSA Sympathizer, cold fjord by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-28 08:13 · Score: 0
  
  Snowden, as a contractor, knew he wasn't covered by whistleblower protection. And he had seen the persecution of people who actually DID supposedly have whistleblower protection (google Thomas Drake for one example), so no, he didn't go through the 'standard channels' -- knowing full well that it would paint a target on his back and give those involved all the notice required to bury everything.
  This is a totally different issue from whether or not one considers his actions 'whistleblowing' or 'treasonous', or both. The fact that the whistleblowing system in the U.S. is completely broken, and corrupt by design.
4. Re:Known NSA Sympathizer, cold fjord by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-28 08:29 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Actually, yes, he did try to go through 'standard channels' first. When the government initially claimed he hadn't, he released the emails & other documentation proving that he had. That was the modus-operandi for the Snowden leaks for quite a while. The government would make a claim, repeat it for a couple news cycles, then more documents from the Snowden bundle would surface disproving the government's claim. After the dozenth such cycle (give or take), government officials largely stopped publicly commenting on the *specifics* of the Snowden leaks, instead restricting themselves to vague (and thus 'editable') generalities.
5. Re:Known NSA Sympathizer, cold fjord by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-28 08:40 · Score: 0
  
  LIES! The gov't has very clearly said that they have not PRESERVED any evidence that he tried to report any wrongdoing.
  FTFY.
6. Re:Known NSA Sympathizer, cold fjord by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-28 09:11 · Score: 0
  
  Snowden has proudly said that he didn't try the official channels.
7. Re: Known NSA Sympathizer, cold fjord by IBME · 2016-01-28 09:34 · Score: 0
  
  How freakin hard is it really to be an anonymous whistleblower? The truth spread far and wide would still paint targets but that would be no worse than getting bad news.
Political persecution by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-28 06:34 · Score: 0

Political persecution? No way. Not in the good ole U, S of A.
Charges by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-28 06:36 · Score: 0

"Tamm is facing ethics charges"
And what about the criminal government?
Fuck me.
Where was I ... by seth_hartbecke · 2016-01-28 06:41 · Score: 0

I was in kindergarten.
The school grouped several classes together into one room to watch the shuttle go up. Mind you this was the mission they were putting a teacher up as part of the crew, so ... much hype in the schools about it.
Anyway, room full of kids say K-3rd grade all watching the launch live on TV. Then ... boom ... and teachers quietly shuffle the kids out of the room and back to their desks.

--
END
All this just to ensure ... by Alain+Williams · 2016-01-28 06:47 · Score: 1

that the next guy who thinks of blowing the gaff on government wrong doing will think hard and probably not expose what he knows. Is this not terrorism by the government of the USA, or maybe just a protection racket "Nice little life you have there, it would be a pity if you ended up in jail" ?
1. Re:All this just to ensure ... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-28 07:08 · Score: 0
  
  that the next guy who thinks of blowing the gaff on government wrong doing will think hard and probably not expose what he knows. Is this not terrorism by the government of the USA, or maybe just a protection racket "Nice little life you have there, it would be a pity if you ended up in jail" ?
  It's an ethics violation, not a criminal charge. Worst case scenario is that he loses his license to practice law in D.C. That would suck, but its not jail time.
2. Re:All this just to ensure ... by Alain+Williams · 2016-01-28 07:19 · Score: 1
  
  OK: not jail time, but he still loses his living.
3. Re:All this just to ensure ... by x_t0ken_407 · 2016-01-28 07:23 · Score: 1
  
  So he just loses his career instead of jail time. Fair trade off, right?
4. Re:All this just to ensure ... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-28 07:37 · Score: 0
  
  Well, he basically committed the greatest sin an attorney can do even if it was for the cause of a greater justice: he violated attorney-client privilege. The government may not have chosen to prosecute, but state bar associations are not forgiving when it comes to lawyers revealing their client's secrets to third parties. However, that said I really don't think he'll be disbarred for the same reason he wasn't prosecuted: it's bad optiks.
5. Re:All this just to ensure ... by radarskiy · 2016-01-28 07:40 · Score: 1
  
  The blurb says he is a public defender in Maryland. This is an ethics probe by the DC Bar.
6. Re:All this just to ensure ... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-28 08:15 · Score: 0
  
  This. Some investigative journalist should make their career digging up exactly who pushed, and where, to make this happen. Obviously another person the gov't wants to make an example of, to ensure everyone's afraid of whistleblowing despite supposed legal protections.
7. Re: All this just to ensure ... by IBME · 2016-01-28 09:57 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah but if he fails court they can just shoot him then.
8. Re:All this just to ensure ... by Imrik · 2016-01-28 10:10 · Score: 1
  
  Only loses his career in DC, where he isn't working at the moment.
9. Re:All this just to ensure ... by AHuxley · 2016-01-28 10:22 · Score: 1
  
  The US is now back to the full tyranny of the UK legal system that the US Constitution was to protect from.
  Speak out in public about the US government and the US government will take the tools of your trade away from you.
  
  Very chilling for any future whistleblowers who stay in or try to use the US legal system.
  No more freedom after speech, to access the press.
  
  --
  Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
this is rich by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-28 06:52 · Score: 5, Insightful

From ethics charge complaint:

...
4. The information with which Respondent [Tamm] was entrusted to support his warrant
applications was secret, and Respondent was required to obtain a special security clearance before
he could make such applications.
5. Respondent became aware that there were some surveillance applications that were
given special treatment. The applications could be signed only by the Attomey General and were
made only to the chiefjudge ofthe Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. The existence of these
applications and this process was secret.
6. Respondent learned that these applications involved special intelligence obtained
from something referred to as “the program.” When he inquired about “the program” of other
members ofthe Ofce of Intelligence Policy and Review, he was told by his colleagues that it was
probably illegal.
7. Even though Respondent believed that an agency of the Department ofJustice was
involved in illegal conduct, he did not refer the matter to higher authority within the Department.
...
9. Respondent’s conduct violated the following provision ofthe Rules ofProfessional
Conduct:
a) Rule l.l3(b), in that he failed to refer information in his possession that
persons within the Department of Justice were violating their legal obligations to higher authority within the Department, including, if warranted, the highest authority that can act on behalf of the
Department, the Attorney General; and
IOW, Tamm was suppose to report illegal surveillance applications signed by the Attorney General to the Attorney General! Well, he was supposed to go up the chain first, but still ultimately the AG would know he was being reported for illegality probably along with Cheney's office where "the program" was being run out of, IIRC. That means that they would be in a position to cover up and thwart any Congressional investigation, or maybe get Congress to pass a amendment to the FISA court law giving backwards immunity to the AG and the FISA Chief Judge.
Anyway, this is an ethics disciplinary charge and not a criminal charge. I doubt he's gonna lose his license over this, though he may have it suspended for short period.
1. Re:this is rich by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-28 20:47 · Score: 0
  
  if he can argue that that higher power was corrupt.. he might get off
Client by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-28 06:53 · Score: 3, Insightful

"his client, the Department of Justice"
No, his "client" was the American people, and he represented them expertly by reveling a secret program to bypass the protections provided by the very document that the entire government including the "Department of Justice" derives its authority.
I thought Mark Klein was the whistleblower by MobyDisk · 2016-01-28 07:16 · Score: 1

I thought Mark Klein was the whistleblower. He was the AT&T contractor who revealed that there was an NSA closet that all phone traffic was routed through. Although reading the Wikipedia article I can't tell who he revealed it to.
1. Re:I thought Mark Klein was the whistleblower by AHuxley · 2016-01-28 11:01 · Score: 1
  
  It was more on the domestic, warrantless use of mass collection of U.S. residents.
  Paper work was been created to give cover to staff asking questions but it was not from a court ie just an authority.
  ie it was a lot of news about how the domestic paperwork was been created to cover for domestic, warrantless collection.
  The authorizing of warrantless surveillance of American citizens was the issue and how deep, far the program went.
  
  Thats why the US had its FISA court, the F been for "Foreign" that made warrantless surveillance of American citizens not legal after what was slowly uncovered in the mid 1970's
  The Church Committee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... tried to look at the domestic role of the NSA and CIA back in 1975.
  After that warrantless collect it all on US was not to be legal and a real court order was needed per person of interest. The later use of any wide "authority" was not from a court.
  
  The Room 641A news also helped the US press understand how data was collected and where. US domestic networks.
  
  Stellar Wind or Stellarwind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/....
  also see MUSCULAR (surveillance program) for the UK options https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  
  "Behind the legal fight over NSA’s “Stellar Wind” surveillance (Dec 17, 2008)
  http://arstechnica.com/tech-po...
  
  --
  Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
This is pathetic.. by bravecanadian · 2016-01-28 07:20 · Score: 4, Insightful

They ignore the constitution, and Tamm is the one whose ethics are being questioned..
I am sure I saw a documentary where he did first question the validity of the wiretaps and he was shut down.
The fact that he did question it and blow the lid off it when they didn't fix the situation shows me that he is pretty good on the ethics front.
That is saying something for a lawyer. :)
1. Re:This is pathetic.. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-28 09:55 · Score: 0
  
  Phone calls and emails intercepted internationally falls outside of the Constitution .
how few actually remember by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-28 07:37 · Score: 0

warrantless wiretapping got news coverage, physical protests for weeks in many colleges, and ongoing smearing of the previous Administration.
Snowden, while revealing an even larger failure by our government to do the right thing, barely gets mentioned outside of the EFF and tech blogs. No mainstream news mentioning it over and over for years, no protests at Berkeley, no big visible campaigns to blame the President and demand his arrest.
What changed? Other than the Party involved at the time of revelation? Why was a system that monitored calls to foreign people "of interest" so much more heinous than metadata capture of every American they could find? or Stingray systems deployed everywhere, even somehow actually ready and in the air over San Bernadino within an hour of a terrorist incident? Siphoning *everyone*s traffic everywhere within our own borders?
where is a 10th the level of public outrage?
1. Re: how few actually remember by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-28 07:59 · Score: 0
  
  You suck at white guilt. Back to the camps with you.
2. Re:how few actually remember by HiThere · 2016-01-28 14:01 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Concentration of media ownership.
  In the 1960's most newpapers were independent of outside owners. In 201x I can't think of a single major news source that is independent. The net, which should be the replacement, is so splintered and filled with untrustworthy sources that most people only pay attention to sites that they already agree with. (We were warned that this was coming back in, I think it was, the 1980's, but nobody took it seriously, even though newspapers were already being bought by corporations that had no, or minimal, interest in the news business and the web had already started to separate into echo chambers. I ignored it myself. I was opposed to the newspaper acquisitions because I was against centralized controls on principle, not because I could see where it would lead.)
  I didn't realize just what the purpose of this was until the main local newspaper was bought by a liquor company. This was clearly not an investment for capital gain, as the paper was losing money. It could have been made barely profitable with careful work, but it couldn't ever repay the cost paid to buy it. So there was clearly some other reason. It took a few years to be certain what the purpose was, but they were clearly sculpting the news. Not lying anymore than before, but selecting which stories to push and which to let die.
  And this was being done all over the country. Now even the small local news only sheet has been bought by a chain, and only the neighborhood newspaper hasn't been purchased. One of the corporations buying newspapers was Heublein, Inc., but they didn't print any more liquor (or fewer) ads after they bought the paper. And they sure didn't buy them as money makers.
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
3. Re:how few actually remember by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-30 02:33 · Score: 0
  
  Concentration of media ownership.
  The corollary is overly large corporations.
  It isn't enough to just prevent "anti-competitive" mergers.
  All mergers and acquisitions need to be blocked if they allow corporations to get larger than a certain size. Giants like walmart, disney, and so forth shouldn't be allowed to exist.
  Large corporations inevitably have ethics problems, and have far too much money available to buy politicians, lawyers, and news services. Plus there's far less competition, and allowing large corporations opens the door up to predatory acquisitions that are harmful to society.
  The current situation violates fundamental rights "retained by the people" under the 9th Amendment (and "reserved to the people" under the 10th), such as the right to ethics in business as well as in government. It violates rights not just of the public, but also of workers and employees.
  10k-20k employees would be a reasonable limit. That's a simple rule, easy to enforce, and one that doesn't require any government bureaucracy to weigh in on the merger or acquisition.
  Even this wouldn't address the specific situation you referred to (of a small news source being bought by a liquor company). Here's another rule that might help: no person working as a manager, an executive, or on the board of directors of a corporation, would be allowed to do any of the other jobs: hence no interlocking boards of directors, and if you're an executive, you don't get to sit on a board.
  Even with all this, there would still need to be limitations on contracts and contract law, or the big companies would simply do the same things they do now by means of interlocking contracts.
Leftist lies ... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-28 08:19 · Score: 0

https://osc.gov/Resources/Know%20Your%20Rights%20When%20Reporting%20Wrongs.pdf
Federal law specifically requires you to report criminal behavior to the Inspector General, Office of Special Counsel or to a congressmen. None of those include journalists.
Not Under the Constitutional by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-28 09:52 · Score: 0

Intercepting international phone calls and emails of Americans falls out of the Constitution .
Can I get my degree now? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-28 10:59 · Score: 0

:..(
If they're going to go after this guy 12 years by waspleg · 2016-01-28 11:16 · Score: 1

later, whom I'm willing to bet almost no one has heard of, imagine what's in store for Edward Snowden should he come back home voluntarily (or be extradited).
No--you are wrong. by Etherwalk · 2016-01-28 11:33 · Score: 1

So, it's a crime to not report evidence of wrong doing to the people who are committing the wrong doing so they can bury the evidence of the wrong doing?
Right, that totally makes fucking sense.
This is why Bush refused to give whistle blower protection to government employees .. so nothing would change.
No. It's an *ethics violation* (you lose the ability to practice law or more likely get reprimanded, but it is not a criminal sanction). You report the unethical conduct to the *bar*, not to the lawyers committing the wrongdoing.
It is probably not enforced much--imagine trying to enforce a rule that cops had to "rat" on each other--but it is an ethics violation.
Ruled by criminals by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-28 11:42 · Score: 0

"When reporting a crime becomes a crime, then you are ruled by criminals."
- Unknown attribution
Wait, are we talking about Russia or the USA here?
Russian Troll Factories by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-28 16:25 · Score: 0

... continue to protect Mr. Edward Snowden by holding cheesy whining parties.
Comrade Putin rates your post: 7.5