'A Ton More People Were Wiretapped Than We've Been Led to Believe': FBI Whistleblower Thomas Tamm

By Liliana Segura, AlterNet. Posted April 18, 2009.

TT: Well that's a very good question. In retrospect, I actually wish I had done it sooner.

But because of the fact that I was under a criminal investigation -- [the FBI] had searched my house, and I knew that they were interviewing close friends and neighbors and former colleagues -- the conventional legal advice is that you shouldn't talk to the media.

You don't want to admit anything in the media that may help [prosecutors] put their case together. You know, there are a lot of valid legal reasons not to do so. So, for a very long period of time I followed my attorney's advice -- and I think it probably was sound, although I remain convinced that I did not actually break any of the national security laws.

But I guess it's a legal question, ultimately.

Isikoff actually called me right after my house was searched by the FBI -- it was searched on a Friday, and he called on a Monday, out of the blue -- and he knew what had been taken out of my house, he know that I had had philosophical disagreements with the Ashcroft administration on death-penalty issues … so he put a little blurb on the Newsweek Internet site, and it got picked up by the [Washington] Post and some other media. … Then every few months he would call me and ask if I was ready to talk -- and finally I decided I was.

And quite frankly, it was against legal advice, but I just thought it was in my best interest.

I had hired private counsel and was getting really behind in being able to pay them -- although they were very generous in saying that they weren't concerned about that -- so part of the reason [I spoke out when I did] was to let people know that I had a defense fund.

My family, neighbors and friends had contributed to it, but I needed to cast a wider net. And it's been very gratifying, the response nationwide -- total strangers contributing small amounts, and occasionally some very large amounts.

Also, with all of the information coming out about the torture and the extraordinary renditions, I thought it was important for people to know that there were people in the government that felt that what was being done in our name was illegal.

LS: What exactly are the accusations against you?

TT: The day after the [FBI] search -- or the following week, Monday or Tuesday -- I was in my attorney's office; he had spoken with the lead prosecutor, and they offered me a plea of a felony of disclosing classified documents, essentially.

Which meant that I would be exposed to jail -- probably would go to jail. And they wanted my cooperation. I said, "Cooperation? Who am I going to testify against?" I said, "You guys know what the New York Times reporters published."

It seemed weird to me to think that they wanted a former Department of Justice employee to testify against people who have First Amendment privileges.

Now [it turns out] that there were leaks from the NSA, so perhaps that's what they were looking for. But during the course of the ongoing investigation, we informed them I had no idea who else had talked about anything.

I couldn't have helped them in any way -- and I wouldn't have wanted to help them in any way. But the statute that they wanted me to plead guilty to -- part of the statute says there was actual damage to national security -- and I just didn't think that they could prove that.

LS: It's interesting, the point you make about the fact that it's public knowledge. It's one thing that's a little confounding about the Obama administration's recent use of the state secrets privilege to block recent lawsuits against the NSA. Like with rendition and torture, are these things really secret anymore? How can the Department of Justice say that on national-security grounds we can't allow these lawsuits to go forward?

TT: Well, it is a reason for concern I think. I mean -- as a matter of policy -- if you are actually in litigation for the Department of Justice, you can't take one position before a judge one week and then because the administration changes, come in and take the opposite position.

So I think, and I hope, kind of with fingers crossed, that that's part of what is influencing the Obama administration, that they are not going to change those policies that are already in the pipeline, but that maybe they will examine them and announce new policies.

I think there's also the possibility that Obama doesn't have all of his staff. You know, they haven't been approved by the Senate -- Dawn Johnsen, who has been nominated to be the head of the Office of Legal Counsel, still is being held up by the Senate -- so I think that may be part of it.

See more stories tagged with: 9/11, death penalty, fbi, michael isikoff, domestic spying, warrantless wiretapping, john ashcroft, state secrets, national security agency, james risen, thomas tamm, eric litchblau

Liliana Segura is an AlterNet staff writer and editor of Rights & Liberties and War on Iraq Special Coverage.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »