Slashdot Mirror
12 Years Later, Warrantless Wiretaps Whistleblower Facing Misconduct Charges (usnews.com)
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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. :)
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.
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
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...