Former employee Tice subpoenaed by Gov regarding NSA

[bg]

This is interesting. The Gov does some shaky deals
and this certainly doesn't help improve my view of it. From the NSWBC. >
http://www.nswbc.org/Press Releases/PR-TiceSubpoena-July28-06.htm

On Wednesday, July 26, Russell Tice, former National Security Agency (NSA) intelligence analyst and a member of National Security Whistleblowers Coalition (NSWBC), was approached outside his home by two FBI agents who served him with a subpoena to testify in front of a federal grand jury. NSWBC has obtained a copy of the subpoena issued for Mr. Tice’s testimony and is releasing it to the public for the first time. The subpoena directs Mr. Tice to appear before the jury on August 2, 2006 at 1:00 p.m. in the Eastern District of Virginia. Mr. Tice “will be asked to testify and answer questions concerning possible violations of federal criminal law."

So does it appear that the Gov is going after a person
who may have spilled the beans regarding possible
rogue surveillance practices performed by the present
Admin, and more than likely not just THIS Admin ?
What do you think ?

 

[buzz_knox]

I think that the person in question may be facing indictment for violating federal law in disclosing classified information. Being a whistleblower doesn't protect one from the consequences of breaking the law.

 

[ChestyP]

Having been in that business

in the past, I can assure you Mr Tice signed several nondisclosure agreements, all of which reminded him of the severe legal penalties should he violate the agreement. He signed them when he was first cleared, he signed them when assigned to work new programs, and he signed a whopping big one when he resigned/retired/was fired.

One receives one's reward for moral courage in the afterlife, not the worldly one.

 

[Jim March]

Can those non-disclosure agreements cover silence on violations of US law?

Possibly not, and if so that's his best shot at getting off.

 

[buzz_knox]

Can those non-disclosure agreements cover silence on violations of US law?

Probably. Most likely, the agency policy authorizes disclosure of potential violations to the agency inspector general and/or general counsel. If the person has an avenue available for disclosing the information, a court would frown upon taking matters into one's own hands and disclosing the information to an outside source, such as the media.