After ruining his career, U.S. DOJ drops charges against whistleblower

In 2004, Thomas Tamm decided to expose the Bush administration’s domestic warrantless eavesdropping program that intercepted private email messages and phone calls of U.S. residents without a court warrant. He paid a high price for making this illegal program public, and now the federal investigation against him has been quietly dropped. This latest development has been covered by Juan Gonzalez and Amy Goodman of Democracy Now, and includes an interview of Mr. Tamm:

JUAN GONZALEZ: We turn now to an update on the whistleblower who helped expose the Bush administration’s warrantless domestic eavesdropping program. He made what’s been called the biggest leak of the Bush era.

In 2004, Justice Department attorney Thomas Tamm called the New York Times and told them about the National Security Agency’s secret program to intercept private email messages and phone calls of U.S. residents without a court warrant. Based in part on his tip, the Times went on to expose what many believe was a highly illegal program. The Times even won a Pulitzer Prize for its reporting. Meanwhile, Thomas Tamm lost his job. The FBI raided his house and began monitoring his phone calls and email. Up until this week, he faced possible arrest for disclosing classified secrets.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, on Tuesday, Politico broke the news that the Justice Department has dropped its longstanding criminal investigation of Tamm. Asked to comment on the story, Attorney General Eric Holder told reporters, quote, "These matters get reviewed by career lawyers in the department. They look at these matters in an exhaustive fashion and reach what I think are appropriate conclusions."

The relatively quiet end to the investigation into Tamm’s warrantless wiretapping leak marks a sharp contrast to the controversy his tip generated during the second half of the Bush administration about whether the government had overstepped its legal authority in response to the 9/11 terror attacks.

Thomas Tamm joins us now from Washington, D.C. We welcome you back to the program.

THOMAS TAMM: Thank you for inviting me.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, talk about what this means and what this investigation, your ouster from the Justice Department, what all of this has meant for your life over the past five years.

THOMAS TAMM: Well, I mean, it’s a relief that the long ordeal is over. Unfortunately, I ruined my career. I had loved working at the Justice Department, particularly in the Criminal Division. It was an honor to represent the people of the United States. As a result of that, I incurred significant legal fees, which I still owe. I borrowed money for those legal fees. And, you know, really, probably the biggest impact was on my family. I wasn’t home when the 18 FBI agents rammed through my house, but my wife was, and my kids were. My kids were awakened in their beds by strangers wearing guns. And I don’t think that they will ever get over that. My wife doesn’t feel the same way about our house, doesn’t feel as safe in our house.

AMY GOODMAN: Could you go back, just chronologically take us through this? Your case did not get a tremendous amount of attention, certainly through the years. So talk about what you found out when you were working in the Justice Department, when you made that phone call to the Times, and how this raid took place. But start at the beginning.

THOMAS TAMM: Well, it really kind of started with me after 9/11. In the Criminal Division, we had the opportunity to talk to the families of the 9/11 attack, and I decided that I wanted to try and go after the real bad guys, the people that had attacked our country. And so, I went to this office where you were—where we did legal wiretapping and electronic surveillance, approved by a court, to try and gain intelligence about foreign agents. I was there only a short period of time. It was right at the start of the Iraq war, and fear permeated that office. And it was—I think for the first time I understood what fear, "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself," actually meant.

And as I participated in that, I realized that there was a separate track of cases, about 10 percent of the cases, that did not go through the normal process, that went to just one particular judge. And only the Attorney General could sign those warrants, which was different from all of the other cases that I handled. And I remember a lawyer that was senior to me saying that she didn’t want to know what this program was. She just assumed it was illegal. And so, I just started—it was kind of an educated guess.

And, you know, it’s interesting to say that I made a phone call to the New York Times. Actually, it was a series of phone calls before I became comfortable even talking to them, and then it was a series of meetings, during which I said, "I think that there’s something illegal going on. I’m not sure what it is." [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingAfter ruining his career, U.S. DOJ drops charges against whistleblower

Kucinich is refused access to Bradley Manning

The DoD is refusing to allow Dennis Kucinich speak with Bradley Manning:

Since my initial request to visit Private First Class (Pfc.) Bradley Manning on February 4, 2011, the Department of Defense (DoD) has consistently sought to frustrate any attempts to communicate with Pfc. Manning regarding his well-being. I or my staff have been shuffled between the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Navy, and the Office of Secretary Gates. I was initially told that I would need Pfc. Manning's approval in order to meet with him. When Pfc. Manning indicated his desire to meet with me, I was belatedly informed that the meeting could only take place if it was recorded because of a Monitoring Order imposed by the military's Special Courts-Martial Convening Authority on September 16, 2010, which was convened for the case. Confidentiality is required, however, to achieve the candor that is necessary to perform the oversight functions with which I am tasked as a Member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. I was also told that I could be subpoenaed to testify about the contents of my conversation with Pfc. Manning. This is a clear subversion of the constitutionally protected oversight process and it severely undermines the rights of any Member of Congress seeking to gather information on the conditions of a detainee in US custody.

Continue ReadingKucinich is refused access to Bradley Manning

Translated: “Because we are torturing Bradley Manning and we don’t want people outside the prison to know about it.”

Why is it so hard for the public at large to learn how Bradley Manning is being treated? You won't hear a straight answer from Mark Toner, spokesman for Barack Obama's State Department. Here's a translation for all you are hearing: "Because we are torturing Bradley Manning and we don't want people outside the military prison to know about it."

Continue ReadingTranslated: “Because we are torturing Bradley Manning and we don’t want people outside the prison to know about it.”

Paul Krugman: Obama is missing

Paul Krugman, writing for the NYT:

I realize that with hostile Republicans controlling the House, there’s not much Mr. Obama can get done in the way of concrete policy. Arguably, all he has left is the bully pulpit. But he isn’t even using that — or, rather, he’s using it to reinforce his enemies’ narrative.

Krugman was commenting on Obama's lack of fight during the recent budget deal. That bad deal comes on the heels of Obama's recent lack of fight on net neutrality, where Obama and his hand-picked commissioner Julius Genachowski purposely steered clear of the promising solution of declaring the Internet to be a mode of "telecommunications" pursuant to the Communications Act of 1996.  That wasn't doable with AT&T looking on, spending more on lobbyists than all members of the military-industrial complex combined. Obama's recent collapse occurred after he declared that he would "Take a back seat to no one" regarding net neutrality. Well, it's clear that Obama didn't have the guts to fight for what he apparently once believed regarding net neutrality.  That's the awful trend.  Consider his inept Wall Street finance alleged reform ("banks" are now bigger than they were prior to the collapse) and consider his convoluted health care reform, which dumped us into the waiting arms of virtually monopolistic private health insurers (mine raised my premium 10% last week--so much for "cost control," Obama's original justification for health care reform). And then there is Guantanamo--yes, it's still open for business, and consider that the "Peace President" ramped up our military presence in Afghanistan, where we still waste $2B/week, killing and maiming numerous civilians in America's longest war.  And consider that Obama has become quite the "Secrecy President."  And consider his unwillingness to speak up to protest the torture of Bradley Manning.  And why is he taking the side of tens of thousands of tax cheats while ignoring the massive injustice done to a man for whom we should be holding parades, Bradley Birkenfeld? Barack Obama is a President who doesn't have the guts to fight for the promises he made during his campaign. It's apparently not in his bones to do so.  He's the Political-Free-Market President: He apparently believes that good things will happen in Washington if only he charms everyone and stays out of the way.  Because of this deep character flaw, his window of opportunity to implement the program he campaigned slammed shut. At best, he'll be playing defense, though the recent budget deal suggests that he doesn't have the grit to play tough defense. If I were a Republican, I'd probably be wondering whether I'd actually want to replace Obama with a Republican. This is all so incredibly surreal.  My thoughts are similar to those expressed by Lawrence Lessig at the 2011 National Conference for Media Reform. He boiled the problem down to this: "Private funds drive elections." He noted that members of Congress spend 30-70% of their time raising money to get re-elected. This has got to change, because "every issue we care about is blocked by this rot." The Citizens know about this problem quite well; Lessig cited a poll showing that 70% of voters "believe that money corrupts Congress." He has declared that it's often not worth our time to fight issues of the day, because good ideas don't have a chance of winning. Instead, we all need to become "rootstrikers." Here's the idea in a nutshell:

""There's no progress so long as private funds drive public elections."

And see the Rootstriker video here. Two nights ago, in the midst of all of this frustration, I had dinner with an African American man who looked at me with shock and disbelief as I expressed my frustrations regarding Barack Obama.  The man warned me that we can't "afford" to criticize Obama, or else Obama's opponents will use that against him.  "We worked so hard to get him elected." Yes, it seems unsavory to criticize the bad judgment of those who we generally respect, but it is often one's moral duty.  For many months I've been losing hope for Obama, evidenced by many articles I've written at this website, but now I'm losing respect for him.  I'll admit that my frustration occurs in the following context:  We've been moving toward the political right for at least 10 years now (longer if you include Bill Clinton's disastrous de-regulation of Wall Street). Based on this long sad slide, it would be immoral for me to not criticize the current president, for whom I voted. There was so much hope in the air a mere two years ago.  Is there still hope?  The current situation brings to mind a quote regarding FDR:
FDR once met with a group of activists who sought his support for bold legislation. He listened to their arguments for some time and then said, "You've convinced me. Now go out and make me do it."
I will do everything in my meager  power to try to make Obama do what he promised, even when that seems hopeless. I will not hold back criticism.  Obama has been making a ghastly string of mistakes ever since elected, even though he ran one of the most brilliant campaigns I've ever seen. But now he appears to almost fully settled as a comfy resident of Washington, D.C., which is now more visibly than ever a highly big seductive coin-operated town.

Continue ReadingPaul Krugman: Obama is missing

Wikileaks in the spotlight at the National Conference for Media Reform

I'm in Boston attending the National Conference for Media Reform - 2011, sponsored by Free Press. I'm one of 2,500 would-be reformers on hand, learning a lot about the state of the media, but there's not enough good news about the news these days. Countless journalists are losing their jobs, newspapers are being shuttered and important stories are thus not getting adequate coverage. On the other hand, the attendees at the conference are, as a group, affable, intelligent and capable people, as are the presenters. Yesterday I attended a panel discussion on Wikileaks, hosted by Amy Goodman of DemocracyNow. I'll offer some of my observations below, before presenting several videos I shot during the discussions.  These videos include of all of the comments by Salon.com's Glenn Greenwald, who has made Wikileaks a strong focus of his work over the past year.  I've also included a video of Amy Goodman's opening comments. In addition to Glenn Greenwald, the panel included Greg Mitchell, who has created an ongoing and comprehensive Wikiweaks series of posts, in The Nation. Each day's entry at his blog includes multiple items, and he's up to at least Day 132. Mitchell has just published an excellent book, The Age of Wikileaks: From Collateral Murder to Cablegate (and Beyond) (2011); I bought a copy at the conference and I'm halfway through. Mitchell suggested early in the session that the federal government has been treating Bradley Manning inhumanely to discourage future whistle-blowers.  Why would that be?  Many of the answers are in Mitchell's own book.  For instance, Mitchell reports that prior to the release of the "Collateral Murder" video, Julian Assange predicted:

Continue ReadingWikileaks in the spotlight at the National Conference for Media Reform