Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Government Privacy News

Wiretap Whistleblower, a Life in Limbo? 521

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Wiretap Whistleblower, a Life in Limbo?

Comments Filter:
  • Content minus crud (Score:4, Informative)

    by oDDmON oUT ( 231200 ) on Monday December 15, 2008 @04:19PM (#26123767)

    Print link [newsweek.com].

    And a damned interesting read, no matter your political stripe.

  • by pudge ( 3605 ) * Works for Slashdot <slashdot.pudge@net> on Monday December 15, 2008 @04:35PM (#26123951) Homepage Journal

    It's only a felony if it is determined that what he was told not to reveal was legal.

    False.

    That's in the godam Uniform Code of Military Justice fer gawdsakes.

    Since this has nothing to do with the military, and hence nothing to do with the UCMJ, I wonder why you think that's relevant. And even then you're still wrong: blowing the whistle on illegal activity is a defense in trial. It is not a defense against being prosecuted, or against charges being filed.

    He believed he WAS defending the constitution!

    And he can present evidence to that effect at trial. This is how the legal system works.

    Now, I am not saying he should be prosecuted: that is up to the discretion of the U.S. Attorney and so on. If the government feels his "illegal activity" defense is strong enough, then they shouldn't bother filing charges. And further, there are other reasons to not bother filing charges.

    But he committed a crime. Period. And purusing him for that is not "chilling," it's following the law.

  • by Toll_Free ( 1295136 ) on Monday December 15, 2008 @04:49PM (#26124189)

    How does that story show anything other than bullshit.

    With 2 US born children, He's got US citizenship.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchor_baby [wikipedia.org]

    --Toll_Free

  • by Haeleth ( 414428 ) on Monday December 15, 2008 @04:50PM (#26124209) Journal

    Are you talking about the same Obama that put Joe the plumber under intense investigation

    No more intense than everyone else who stood up in the spotlight. Doesn't the public have a right to know whether the claims people are making are true or not? And it was the press as much as Obama who went and investigated. I don't think we really want to discourage our free press from investigating claims that someone is trying to use to influence a presidential election, do we?

    So, not everything they uncovered was nice. That's not their fault. If you want to stand up and complain about taxes, it helps if you've actually paid them. Joe the plumber learned that the hard way.

    Is this the Obama that makes you feel warm and fuzzy about the 1st amendment?

    Joe the plumber had the right to speak freely, he exercised that right, and nobody did anything to restrain him or to prevent him having plenty of media exposure where he was positively encouraged to go into great detail about his beliefs.

    He got a massive audience for his speech, which is way more than the First Amendment guarantees.

    So there were bad consequences? Too bad. The First Amendment says nothing, nothing at all, about the consequences of exercising your right. All it says is that Congress can't make any laws taking that right away.

  • by Ethanol-fueled ( 1125189 ) * on Monday December 15, 2008 @05:03PM (#26124477) Homepage Journal

    I will support and defend the Constitution of the
    United States against all enemies, foreign and
    domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to
    the same; that I take this obligation freely, without
    any mental reservation or purpose of evasion
    ; and that
    I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the
    office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

    'Nuff said. Still, it sucks to see Slashdot staff drinking the FBI's "National Security" kool-aid. He did what he believed was the right thing, and that was to call attention to illegal activity within the intelligence services.

    Now let's say, in the near-too-distant future, that the United States becomes a full-blown dystopia and Slashdot's still around:

    Would you, Pudge, help the feds round up all of the Slashdotters who have been known to post subversive opinion? Would you receive satisfaction from the doggie bones and pats on the head? Or maybe you're just making deals with the devil because you want that DUI expunged or you have a few foreign-born relatives you want to bring in...who knows?

  • by OrangeTide ( 124937 ) on Monday December 15, 2008 @05:15PM (#26124697) Homepage Journal

    In Washington it's all about playing ball with special interests that have the power.

    It would take a massive shift in the way we vote for it to become practical for a politician to stand up for what it right. Right now anyone who stands up gets swatted down and thrown out of DC. To add another cliché, in US politics you better not rock the boat.

  • Follow the money (Score:4, Informative)

    by bussdriver ( 620565 ) on Monday December 15, 2008 @05:21PM (#26124791)

    ATnT was the biggest contributor to the party conventions (well to the DFL; don't remember if they were #1 for GOP.)

    Fix the money and then politicians who will not compromise their ethics can get somewhere. When they compromise in order to win it makes you wonder just how far they will let their ethics lapse and if they will get worse with prolonged exposure to corporatism.

  • Re:Time to Play (Score:4, Informative)

    by chaboud ( 231590 ) on Monday December 15, 2008 @05:25PM (#26124853) Homepage Journal

    You don't think it's Jason Wesley Lawless of 43164 Crosswind Ter. Broadlands, VA 20148, born 12/31/1972 (birthday's coming up), at (571) 333-3347, do you?

    It seems awfully stupid to go after a guy that the majority of Americans will end up calling a patriot when you haven't gone so far as to have an unlisted number. That said, there was a Jason W. Lawless, ADA, in Tennessee [state.tn.us], and the Jason W. Lawless in Broadlands (DC suburb) did live in Nashville before. No doubt members of the press already know how to contact him...

  • by 5pp000 ( 873881 ) on Monday December 15, 2008 @05:44PM (#26125145)
    Thomas Tamm Legal Defense Fund
    Bank of Georgetown
    5236 44th Street
    Washington, DC 20015

    Everyone who cares about freedom in the US should chip in. I'm going to (despite being quite strapped at the moment).

  • by genner ( 694963 ) on Monday December 15, 2008 @06:00PM (#26125349)

    So, according to you, Obama == democrats. Hmmm, that's like saying that ME == set of all sexy men in the world. It's a little far fetched.

    And what branch of government is the NSA part of? And how many Democrats run that branch? Answers - executive, NONE.

    The comment was *who* was tapping and wrecking the whistleblower's life - not who has been ineffective at stopping the Republican President from wiretapping.

    So tell me again why simply saying that it's Republicans who are committing these crimes is ideological? Got news for you. Nixon was a Republican, and that is also a fact.

    No matter how yoou dance the fact remains that Obama voted for the telecom immunity. So did a lot of other Democrats.

  • by alexander_686 ( 957440 ) on Monday December 15, 2008 @06:09PM (#26125475)
    Bill Clinton ordered the wireless wiretaps. He also order forced renditions of terrorist to 3rd party countries to be "questioned". George may have done it on a grander scale, but Bill got there first.
  • He had an opportunity to not get elected if he voted against the bill.

    It's the opportunities before him when he takes office that I'm most interested in.

  • by 0xdeadbeef ( 28836 ) on Monday December 15, 2008 @06:53PM (#26126003) Homepage Journal

    Let me connect the dots so your perl-addled brain might understand why people are modding you down:

    The mood of post-9/11 America was paranoid and xenophobic.
    The government reflected that mood, and even acted to fan the flames for its own purposes.
    Historical precedence and human nature are more than adequate reasons to be fearful of it in this state.
    In that political climate, it is very plausible that an immigrations official might abuse his authority to deny citizenship based on the applicant's perceived loyalty.

  • by Darby ( 84953 ) on Monday December 15, 2008 @07:07PM (#26126165)


    look Obama is a elected official, from Chicago!

    If you think for one second that he is going to do anything different form Illinois business as usual you are seriously mistaken.

    want to know what Illinois business as usual is, look at the news for the past week.

    You're right that assuming Obama is going to magically fix things is wrong, but had you paid any attention at all to the situation in Illinois (I live here), you'd know that Obama got a hearty "Fuck that guy" from Blago because he wasn't interested in playing those games and expected him to do the job he was being paid for without being bribed.

  • Comment removed (Score:2, Informative)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday December 15, 2008 @08:10PM (#26126887)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • by pctainto ( 325762 ) on Monday December 15, 2008 @08:26PM (#26127039) Homepage

    Get your facts straight. The legal justification was not written by the Clinton Justice department. Most, if not all, of the legal justification was done by John Yoo [wikipedia.org] (in the Office of Legal Counsel) and David Addington [wikipedia.org] (Cheney's legal counsel, now chief of staff). They were the people who empowered the NSA, the Justice Department and the President to act so egregiously.

  • by pudge ( 3605 ) * Works for Slashdot <slashdot.pudge@net> on Monday December 15, 2008 @08:41PM (#26127163) Homepage Journal

    Get your facts straight. The legal justification was not written by the Clinton Justice department.

    Oh, so you don't know about the Jamie Gorelick's infamous statement on FISA [nationalreview.com] in 1994: "The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes." "Inherent authority" means, of course, that Congress cannot take that authority away with a statute, such as FISA.

  • Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday December 15, 2008 @08:44PM (#26127189)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Re:UnConstitutional (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 15, 2008 @10:23PM (#26128061)

    Bullshit, the oath of office for military members does NOT contain any oath of allegiance to the commander in chief, only to "support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies foreign and domestic." And yes, I am in the military.

  • "Scooter" Tamm? (Score:2, Informative)

    by kinglitho ( 879478 ) on Tuesday December 16, 2008 @11:55AM (#26133191)
    Remember Valerie Plame?
    If it was so important to find and punish the leaker (Richard Armitage, who BTW was never charged with any crime) who outed her, then why aren't you defenders of law and freedom crying out for the prosecution of this leaker?
    Oh, I forgot, it doesn't count if it makes a Republican look bad.

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Working...