Earlier this month I posed a question about whether or not Georgetown Law School professor Jonathan Turley was practicing full-disclosure in his television appearances attacking the NSA surveillance program.

When the New York Times broke the NSA surveillance story, Turley went on some Fox News program -- I don't remember which one -- and offered his opinion as a "Constitutional Law Professor" that the surveillance was illegal.

A couple days later I caught Turley again on TV -- a different network I believe, probably CNN -- and he was discussing the spate of motions filed on behalf of convicted terrorist cell members in the United States to force the government to reveal if the NSA surveillance was what tipped the government off to their clients identity. This time, instead of being described as a con-law professor, he was so-and-so's lawyer -- one of those convicted terror cell members.

Now, he could've become this guy's lawyer after the first interview and before the second. However, last night he was back on Fox News only as a "Constitutional Law Professor" and not as a lawyer with a vested interest in the case.

Well, thanks to the Media Research Center's Newsbusters blog, I can confirm now that Turley is representing convicted terror supporter Ali al-Timimi and is basing his client's appeal on the alleged illegality of the NSA program.

Turley is not a disinterested third party; he has a vested interest in the NSA program. Any appearance by Turley on TV or in the print press where he does not disclose this fact is far more ethically troubling than Antonin Scalia playing tennis while John Roberts is being sworn in. While we're at it, whatever network that has Turley on also has a duty to disclose this fact.