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.
Everyone chip in $10, we'll pay his legal bills and whatever is left over goes to him, regardless of how things turn out.
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.
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.
says Snowden should have gone through proper channels. Lulz.
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. :)
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."
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.