The perils and imperatives of conscience
The dark side of blowing the whistle
The perils and imperatives of conscience
Dick Polman, Inquirer National Political Columnist
The death last week of Mark Felt – best known as Deep Throat, the FBI guy who spilled the beans on Watergate – has prompted some media praise for those rare civil servants who blow the whistle on government perfidy. But even though Felt is arguably the most famous of all whistle blowers, he didn’t suffer in the workplace the way so many whistle blowers do. Unlike other members of that elite little group, Felt managed to guard his secret identity; as a result, he wasn’t ostracized at work, or demoted, or threatened with criminal or civil punishment.
No, a far more typical whistle blower is Thomas Tamm – hardly a household name, but perhaps he deserves to be. As profiled the other day in Newsweek, Tamm turns out to be a classic example of the genre. He’s suffering from depression, he’s 30 grand in debt, he’s struggling to make a living after leaving the U.S. Justice Department, and he’s currently in legal limbo, thanks to the ongoing threat of retaliatory federal prosecution for potential offenses that could land him in jail for a decade.
Thomas Tamm, a former career fed whose father and uncle were big shots in J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI, is the guy who blew the whistle on George W. Bush’s illegal, warrantless domestic surveillance program. In the spring of 2004, he went to a pay phone and dialed up The New York Times.
As a lawyer in the Justice Department’s Office of Intelligence Policy and Review (tasked to request permission for national-security wiretaps), Tamm didn’t know all the details about the program, but he knew enough to conclude that it “didn’t smell right,” and that his higher-ups were apparently violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act – the 1978 law which mandated that ongoing domestic surveillance could only be conducted with “probable cause,” as approved by a secret court of federal judges. When Tamm got wind of the illegal program, he asked himself, “I’m a law-enforcement officer, and I’m participating in something that is illegal?” His ultimate motive for spilling the beans was quite simple; as he told Newsweek, “I had taken an oath to uphold the Constitution.”
I was struck by those comments; they conjured some old memories. Two decades ago, I wrote a long magazine story about federal whistle-blowers, based on interviews around the country, and the people I met were a lot like Tamm. They had the same psychological makeup. Here’s what I wrote at the time:
“They are workaholics, even perfectionists. They have a strong sense of personal worth. They’re trusting souls who believe that evil is no match for good. They aren’t rebels by nature. They tend to be cultural conservatives…Typically, when the crisis of conscience hits, they can be found on the middle rungs of the career ladder – high enough to have witnessed a betrayal of the public interest, but low enough to be out of the loop. They trust that the system will applaud their virtue, and its only after the first rude shock of rejection that they confront their naivete. But once wronged, they will risk alienating even their families in the quest for vindictation…They become living testaments to the dark side of sainthood.”
After dropping a dime on the wrongdoing they’ve witnessed, life typically gets ugly. The Justice Department launched an investigation to determine who leaked to The Times, and figured out Tamm’s involvement (although he was not the only leaker). Sixteen months ago, 18 FBI agents raided Tamm’s house, confiscated everything from his childrens' laptops to the family Christmas card list, and began quizzing all his friends and associates about Tamm’s political loyalties. (One retired judge, who had served as Tamm’s mentor, told the FBI agents that “operating outside the FISA law was one of the biggest injustices of the Bush administration,” and that if Tamm had blown the whistle, “I’d be proud of him for doing that.”)
Tamm’s ongoing predicament – he could still be prosecuted under a federal statute that bars disclosure of any information deemed harmful to the “national defense” – somehow triggered memories of Billie Garde, one of the whistle-blowers whom I interviewed 20 years ago. Their jobs were very different, as were the retaliatory actions. But still…
Garde grew up in Oklahoma, and was taught by her parents that integrity was a virtue not to be compromised. In high school, while working at a movie theater, she’d seen her co-workers skimming the popcorn money. But she said nothing. The scam was discovered, and all the employes had to appear in juvenile court. Her parents told her that her silence had been akin to complicity, and they forced her to confess his acquiesance to her younger siblings.
Flash forward to young adulthood, and a job at the U.S. Census Bureau office in Muskogee, Okla. Her boss turned out to be a well-connected Democrat with congressional ambitions who proceeded to use the office as a political front, copying the master address list and selling it to Democratic political operatives. Garde, after much hesitation, complained to Census Bureau higher-ups. In retaliation, she was fired, and her boss convinced a local judge to award full custody of Garde’s two young daughters to her ex-husband. It took Garde another year to get her kids back, and it took her eight years to collect $3000 in back wages. Yet she still insisted, “I can justify why I blew the whistle, I understand why I did it.”
She did it for the same reason that Tamm did it; as one of Tamm’s lawyers, Asa Hutchinson (a former top-ranked Department of Homeland Security official) told Newsweek, “the action he took was based on his view of a higher responsibility.”
It’s no fun to speak truth to power – Harry Truman once said that if you want a friend in Washington, get a dog – and Tamm will forever be lauded by some as a hero and assailed by others as a traitor. But, given the track record of government wrongdoing, we’ll always need people of conscience who defy the pressures of conformity. As one of my whistle blowers, Vince Laubach (who ran afoul of the Interior Department after exposing corruption), told me 20 years ago:
“I think, as Americans, we’ve lost our sense of sin. Douglas MacArthur used to talk about duty and honor. Whatever happened to honor? What about our sense of decency? I did what I could (by blowing the whistle). But what about everybody else?"
Too bad Mr. Tamm, like you and the rest of the media, have no evidence of any illegality concerning domestic wiretaps. You say he didn't know all the details of the program, so he appointed himself judge and jury and decided guilt based on it "didn't smell right". It just so happens that Mr. Tamm conveniently has the number of the New York Times and gives them a ring. I mean why wouldn't he, if he believed evil is no match for good, take his concerns to his superiors? No, he went to an organization who's sole purpose for being is to bring down the President. In honor of Mr. Tamm, I am appointing myself judge and jury because something here "doesn't smell right". I believe the NYT and Mr. Tamm were working together. Tamm sold his services to the Times as an inside man to dig up dirt on the administration's anti-terror programs. He then received payment from the Times for this information which they happily made public. Is there evidence to support my claim? Who cares, I had a hunch.— jmc
JMC, you're an idiot. You can be judge and jury all you want.....of your little make believe kingdom. He went to a news organization because, as anyone who has studied business (or Ethics for that matter) knows, the whistle blower is the one who is ultimately punished. And because the President ultimately was the source of this program, there not really a higher power he can go to within the Gov't. So he went to the President's boss, the American people, via a communication outlet he felt he could trust. "He just so happened to have a number for the New York Times".....I don't have the number for the New York Times, but I can get it in 10 seconds. The New York Times only purpose is to bring down the president? Does that apply to all presidents, or just the current failure? Does that mission still apply for the New York Times next month? Bush has been a disgrace on so many occasions, that it's really not worth arguing at this point.— gee1971- GEE: You don't understand conservative thinking. Bush was not charged, investigated or investigated w/ unquestionable findings, and that equals no fact-based wrongdoing on his part. This also applies to the other 71 questionable events of the last 8 years.— Talvenada
- I'm incredibly grateful that people like Mr. Tamm have the guts to talk and that independent news organizations like the NYT & Inquirer still exist. I've seen numerous instances where the free press is the only thing protecting us from corrupt and over-reaching government. That Mr. Tamm is now being targeted for harassment is a huge injustice.— DavidGtown
- I'm incredibly grateful that people like Mr. Tamm have the guts to talk and that independent news organizations like the NYT & Inquirer still exist. I've seen numerous instances where the free press is the only thing protecting us from corrupt and over-reaching government. That Mr. Tamm is now being targeted for harassment is a huge injustice.— DavidGtown
- GEE: This thinking proves that Clinton was way worse than Nixon, as Nixon was never impeached. They also believe Hoover was screwed by FDR, as FDR kept the Great Depression going for 7 years longer than if Hoover was in the WH. Remember, Hoover said prosperity is just around the corner. Deregulation takes us back to the good old days of Hoover B4 FDR's welfare state: they don't like people collecting social security.— Talvenada
Comment removed.- Comment removed.
- GEE: With Bush conservs know that they'll have free speech and rights, and everybody else is not their problem. If Tamm was a conserv, or The Times was a conserv press, they NEVER would have done that.— Talvenada
- Comment removed.
- Let me say Merry Christmas to all posters. Woops I'm sorry. I should be more politically correct. Merry Ramahankwanzmas everyone! And no I didn't read polman's latest hit piece
- Thank you, Mr. Polman for a year of thoroughly enjoyable lunchtime reading. Each day I look forward to what you have to say and I relish the lively commentary from your audience (even from those who appear brain dead or those who seem to have very little grip on the English language). I have certainly learned a great deal from your blog. Best wishes for a happy holiday season and for continued success in 2009.— Nardis
- We need people like Mr. Tamm and Mr. Felt but why in the world would you want to put yourself and your family through it? After the whistle is blown what's the first thing that happens? That person is called a liar and a traitor. There has to be a way to protect these people. I can imagine blowing the whistle can be a very stressful thing. Only you truly know that what you are saying is true and the other people involved are going to do everything in their power to discredit you. I'm sure people like ark would be very unhappy if something happened to them and the truth wasn't told. Apparently to some people high ranked officials can do no wrong especially if they are conservative republicans like George W. Bush. Wrongdoing is just that! It's wrong and if we continue to punish those who will tell the truth said wrongdoing will continue unabated.— James TL
- RAUOL: Bush pardoned him, which means he did no wrongdoing. Cheney said he's a patriot. Conservs say he was not charged for the leak, which makes him innocent. Like the Nazis for Adolph, he was only doing his job, which makes it okay.— Talvenada
- Rauol Duke- Fitzgeralds investigation was about who leaked Valerie Plames name to the press. Fitzergerald knew early on that it was Richard Armitage but he didn't matter since Plame didn't meet the standards of what is considered undercover so essentially Fitzgerald kept the investigation going and got Scooter Libby on a totally unrelated charge. Your side of the aisle is gettin its own dose of Fitzgeralds medicane with Blagjevich. I think Rahm Ememanual is going to be taking the fall
Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.
ARCHIVES
All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.
- American Spectator
- David Limbaugh
- Free Republic
- Glenn Reynolds
- Hugh Hewitt
- Human Events
- John Hawkins
- Matt Lewis
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Opinion Journal
- Power Line
- Red State
- The Brody File
- The Daily Caller
- Town Hall
- Weekly Standard
- Center for American Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos
- David Corn
- Huffington Post
- Media Matters
- Mojoblog (Mother Jones)
- Open Left
- Political Animal
- Salon's War Room
- Talking Points Memo
- Tapped
- The Democratic Strategist
- The Grey Matter
- Unclaimed Territory
- Andrew Sullivan
- Attytood
- Chi Tribune's The Swamp
- CJR's Campaign Desk
- CNN's Political Ticker
- CQ Politics
- FactCheck.org
- Gail Collins
- Howard Kurtz
- Mickey Kaus
- NBC's First Read
- Obit
- Political Wire
- Politico
- Politics Daily
- Pollster.com
- Real Clear Politics
- The Atlantic Wire
- The Fix
- The Moderate Voice
- The Plank
- USA Today On Politics
- Wonkette
