'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.

But what really concerns me is that we still don't know the truth. We do not know what they did. We don't need to know how they did it, but I think we need to know what was done and what their legal justification was.

That's something I intend to say at the Ridenhour prize ceremony -- that we still really need to find out what was done.

You get into the question of whether you're gong prosecute somebody or hold them accountable for breaking the law. It seems to me that, first of all, you investigate something and find out what was done -- and then you make a decision as to whether they acted in good faith or whether, from a policy standpoint, you don't want to go forward.

But I think it's very troubling that we really don't know the total scope of how many people were wiretapped. And I think we're going to find that, like in Watergate, there were enemies lists that were compiled. And I think we're going to find that a ton more people were wiretapped than we've been led to believe.

LS: Even in the past few months we've discovered that the scope of the wiretapping was even broader than what we'd already learned and that journalists were targeted. Do you have any particular reasons to believe that we're going to discover these things?

TT: It's just an opinion, really, it's kind of my gut feeling, kind of like when I figured out that they were doing something illegally -- it was based on a lot of years of experience.

But when you read about Karl Rove saying that he had lists of Republicans who were not that supportive, and when you read about John Bolton, who was the ambassador to the United Nations -- there were reports that he was kind of listening in on, or had amazing knowledge, let's say, of what some of the envoys who were going around the world were thinking …

[The Bush administration] had this mentality that what they were doing, no matter whether it was against the law -- that the ends justified the means. They were saving the world, they were the only ones that were capable of doing that.

And I think when you have that mentality, you can justify doing almost anything. And you know, with data mining, if we collect everything, really it means we analyze nothing. They really have to focus on people that may harm the country, as opposed to journalists and people they don't like.

LS: FBI Director Robert Mueller recently testified before members of Congress, and he was asked about the Patriot Act's provisions on eavesdropping, which are scheduled to sunset at the end of the year.

Mueller basically said that these have been very valuable for national security, keeping us safe, etc. Do you have the sense that they are going to reauthorize these provisions, given what you are describing about the ends justifying the means?

TT: You know, I haven't really given much consideration of that, because I still have this cloud kind of hanging over me. I wish the Obama administration would make a decision one way or another [on whether to indict].

But listen: There is an absolute critical need to be able to legally, under the Fourth Amendment, listen to people -- particularly overseas, which you don't need a warrant for -- who may well be doing harm to our country.

I just think that the provisions of the Patriot Act and the provisions of the FISA law have been too broadly drawn. We are a stronger country and a safer country if we work within the rule of law and the Constitution.

So to me, for example, on the telecom-immunity issue, the case that's going on in California [which the Obama administration is trying to block], I think it's really important to find out what these huge corporations did. Because when I was doing it -- legally with the DOJ -- they had lawyers from all the fancy law firms giving them advice -- and they knew how to do it legally.

So if it were me, I would let that civil litigation go on; then when you found out what was done, then you can make a decision as to whether you want to give them immunity or not. Maybe that's the right thing to do. But we're granting immunity, and we're trying to re-up the Patriot Act really not knowing what went on. And I just think it's important to get out as much as we possibly can.

LS: Do you think the idea of a truth commission is the appropriate way to do that with the possibility of an independent prosecutor?

TT: Yes. Ultimately, I think there will probably need to be an independent prosecutor … someone who really knows what the prosecutor's duty is. If you feel that someone has a valid defense, you should not prosecute them. (Like in the Ted Stevens case. They had information that went in his favor, and yet they hid it from the defense. The ethical prosecutors reveal the bad, plus the good.)

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 »