AP: Govt obtains wide AP phone records in probe

[AsburySkinsFan]

Wikileaks, I'm consistent with it as I am with this.

Leaks sometimes bring very damning information to the public eye, but if you're going to leak classified information and you're expecting anything other than to be prosecuted by the government then you're foolish.

If you aren't willing to accept the legal punishment then I'd suggest not leaking classified government material.

And that goes for Assange, Bradley and the AP.

[twa]

If you aren't willing to accept the legal punishment then I'd suggest not leaking classified government material.

And that goes for Assange, Bradley and the AP.

seems reasonable

[visionary]

http://blog.ap.org/2013/05/13/ap-responds-to-intrusive-doj-seizure-of-journalists-phone-records/

Updated: AP responds to latest DOJ letter

From Gary Pruitt, president and CEO of The Associated Press:

We appreciate the DOJ’s prompt response, but it does not adequately address our concerns. The letter simply restates the law and claims that officials have complied with it. There are three significant concerns:

The scope of the subpoena was overbroad under the law, given that it involved seizing records from a broad range of telephones across AP’s newsgathering operation. More than 100 journalists work in the locations served by those telephones. How can we consider this inquiry to be narrowly drawn?

Rather than talk to us in advance, they seized these phone records in secret, saying that notifying us would compromise their investigation. They offer no explanation of this, however.

Finally, they say this secrecy is important for national security. It is always difficult to respond to that, particularly since they still haven’t told us specifically what they are investigating.

We believe it is related to AP’s May 2012 reporting that the U.S. government had foiled a plot to put a bomb on an airliner to the United States. We held that story until the government assured us that the national security concerns had passed. Indeed, the White House was preparing to publicly announce that the bomb plot had been foiled.

The White House had said there was no credible threat to the American people in May of 2012. The AP story suggested otherwise, and we felt that was important information and the public deserved to know it.

[mistertim]

Dick Cheney had a habit of labeling just about everything TSSCI.

Because the gov't deems it classified, is it right to be classified? You are falling into the "because the government says it is right, damnit its right" trap. In particular with the way the administration has hammered leakers

As opposed to the "if the government says or does something questionable then dammit its proof that we're on a slippery slope towards a police state" trap that some seem to fall into?

I get where you're coming from but you seem to assume that there is necessarily something nefarious whenever a bad or even iffy decision by the government comes to light. I agree to an extent regarding classified information but at the same time...who should be deciding what gets classified? Should it be up for a popular vote? Up to a judge? A group of independent consultants? Doctor Who? (my vote)

As frustrating as the whole "classified" or "national security" labels can be, at the end of the day it is still illegal to divulge that information. As ASF pointed out, whoever is planning on doing so should go into it knowing that they very well could be and probably will be gone after legally by the government.

As far as how the government has gone after the people, they don't appear to be breaking any laws in doing so. Now, if you have a problem with the laws that pertain to those methods (and I certainly do with some of them), then that's something of a different (but valid) issue.

[Larry]

My opinion on leaking classified information is kinda like killing somebody.

If you've got a good enough reason, the jury won't convict you. But it better be a damned good reason.

(And I haven't seen anything to make me think that the leaker in THIS case, had a good enough reason).

[luckydevil]

I'd be curious to hear people's opinion of Julian Assange and wikileaks.

/QUOTE]

I love wikileaks,

[twa]

(And I haven't seen anything to make me think that the leaker in THIS case, had a good enough reason).

IDK the issue of public in danger might be good enough

[visionary]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/15/opinion/spying-on-the-associated-press.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

Spying on The Associated Press

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD

The Obama administration, which has a chilling zeal for investigating leaks and prosecuting leakers, has failed to offer a credible justification for secretly combing through the phone records of reporters and editors at The Associated Press in what looks like a fishing expedition for sources and an effort to frighten off whistle-blowers.

On Friday, Justice Department officials revealed that they had been going through The A.P.’s records for months. The dragnet covered work, home and cellphone records used by almost 100 people at one of the oldest and most reputable news organizations. James Cole, a deputy attorney general, offered no further explanation on Tuesday, saying only that it was part of a “criminal investigation involving highly classified material” from early 2012.

Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. said he could not comment on the details of the phone records seizure, which he said was an open investigation — although he was happy to comment on the open investigation into the tax audits of conservative groups, which he said might have been criminal and were “certainly outrageous and unacceptable.”

Both Mr. Holder and Mr. Cole declared their commitment — and that of President Obama — to press freedoms. Mr. Cole said the administration does not “take lightly” such secretive trolling through media records.

We are not convinced. For more than 30 years, the news media and the government have used a well-honed system to balance the government’s need to pursue criminals or national security breaches with the media’s constitutional right to inform the public. This action against The A.P., as the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press outlined in a letter to Mr. Holder, “calls into question the very integrity” of the administration’s policy toward the press.

[twa]

if he doesn't know who does?

is the number classified now?

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/05/15/184138253/holder-isnt-sure-how-often-reporters-records-are-seized?ft=1&f=1001

Holder Isn't Sure How Often Reporters' Records Are Seized

During an interview with NPR's Carrie Johnson on Tuesday, Holder was asked how often his department has obtained such records of journalists' work.

"I'm not sure how many of those cases ... I have actually signed off on," Holder said. "I take them very seriously. I know that I have refused to sign a few [and] pushed a few back for modifications."

[PeterMP]

if he doesn't know who does?

is the number classified now?

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/05/15/184138253/holder-isnt-sure-how-often-reporters-records-are-seized?ft=1&f=1001

Holder Isn't Sure How Often Reporters' Records Are Seized

During an interview with NPR's Carrie Johnson on Tuesday, Holder was asked how often his department has obtained such records of journalists' work.

"I'm not sure how many of those cases ... I have actually signed off on," Holder said. "I take them very seriously. I know that I have refused to sign a few [and] pushed a few back for modifications."

Come on twa.

I just submitted grades this week. I signed off on and take very seriously every grade under a C- and even triple check them.

I couldn't sit here without looking at how D's I assigned just for this semester (the grades I submitted this week). Much less how many I've done for the year (including last semester).

[twa]

so he signed off on as many as you do grades?

it is that common?

[PeterMP]

so he signed off on as many as you do grades?

it is that common?

Probably not, but I was also talking about a sub-set of grades done very recently. Think about something you don't do very often, and then ask how many times have you done it since 2009.

I'd guess, especially at a time when if your wrong people are going to very critical of you can call you a liar and say that your wrong number means there is more to hide, you'd be hesitant to put a firm number on it.

[SkinsHokieFan]

From the New York Times (not the NY Post)

http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/14/leak-investigations-are-an-assault-on-the-press-and-on-democracy-too/

Leak Investigations Are an Assault on the Press, and on Democracy, Too

By MARGARET SULLIVAN

This was supposed to be the administration of unprecedented transparency. President Obama promised that when he took office, and the White House’s Web site says so on this very day. It reads:

My administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in government.

Government should be transparent. Transparency promotes accountability and provides information for citizens about what their government is doing.

Instead, it’s turning out to be the administration of unprecedented secrecy and of unprecedented attacks on a free press. I wrote about the chilling effect of the Obama administration’s leak investigations – including the ramped-up criminal prosecution of those who provide information to the press — in a Sunday column in March.

Link for rest

And one more good article

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/05/ap-phone-record-scandal-justice-department-law.html

The cowardly move by the Justice Department to subpoena two months of the A.P.’s phone records, both of its office lines and of the home phones of individual reporters, is potentially a breach of the Justice Department’s own guidelines. Even more important, it prevented the A.P. from seeking a judicial review of the action. Some months ago, apparently, the government sent a subpoena (or subpoenas) for the records to the phone companies that serve those offices and individuals, and the companies provided the records without any notice to the A.P. If subpoenas had been served directly on the A.P. or its individual reporters, they would have had an opportunity to go to court to file a motion to quash the subpoenas. What would have happened in court is anybody’s guess—there is no federal shield law that would protect reporters from having to testify before a criminal grand jury—but the Justice Department avoided the issue altogether by not notifying the A.P. that it even wanted this information. Even beyond the outrageous and overreaching action against the journalists, this is a blatant attempt to avoid the oversight function of the courts.

Luckydevil compared Obama to Nixon. So does the Pentagon papers lawyer

http://observer.com/2013/05/just-a-crook-pentagon-papers-lawyer-thinks-obama-is-worse-than-nixon/

Just a Crook? Pentagon Papers Lawyer Thinks Obama Is Worse Than Nixon

James C. Goodale, the so-called “father of reporters’ privilege” and the author of a new book called Fighting for the Press (CUNY Journalism Press, 255 pp., $20), was in his office at the Debevoise & Plimpton law firm, where he’s a partner, comparing Barack Obama to Richard M. Nixon.

“Nixon and Agnew were like listening to a Fox News program all day long, every day,” he said. “In their eyes, the Eastern establishment press were against them and they were against it and they were going to destroy it as best they can.” But, he said, “Obama has all these things that he’s done to the press on national security matters that Nixon never did.”

Link for rest

For those of you who need talking points to defend the administration, media matters has done the job for you

http://mediamattersaction.org/message/

The DOJ's AP Investigation

May 14, 2013 4:02 pm ET

The AP revealed yesterday that the Justice Department secretly obtained two months of reporter and editor phone records from 2012, likely as part of an investigation into leaks around a counterterrorist operation in the Arabian Peninsula. While it's early in this story and we don't have all the facts, this case raises important questions about the balance between a free press and effective national security. For those interested in pushing back against partisan attacks while the rest of us grapple with the larger questions, here is language to guide you.

Link for rest

[SkinsHokieFan]

Come on twa.

I just submitted grades this week. I signed off on and take very seriously every grade under a C- and even triple check them.

I couldn't sit here without looking at how D's I assigned just for this semester (the grades I submitted this week). Much less how many I've done for the year (including last semester).

Peter- This administration has used the espionage act to prosecute whistleblowers a mere 6 times, which is also double all previous administrations using it COMBINED

Thusly I would imagine the AG would be on top of how many times reporters have their records seized utilizing the espionage act in particular.

[PeterMP]

Peter- This administration has used the espionage act to prosecute whistleblowers a mere 6 times, which is also double all previous administrations using it COMBINED

Thusly I would imagine the AG would be on top of how many times reporters have their records seized utilizing the espionage act in particular.

I suspect there have been record seizures that haven't lead to prosecution yet or at all.

I would suspect, for example, as a result of the stories after Osama's death (espesecially the reportedly frist person ones) there were probably multiple cases of them getting records (how many different versions of the events have been leaked now).

I wouldn't at all be surprised if the number of requests he's approved is closer to or even over a dozen.

And the question isn't even limited to the espionage act.

A reporter somehow involved in a drug ring or drug trafficing and the DoJ wants their phone records, that counts too.

**EDIT**

And I'm never going to blame the Executive branch for enforcing the law. That's the their job. If we/congress don't like it, we should change the law.

[twa]

Probably not, but I was also talking about a sub-set of grades done very recently. Think about something you don't do very often, and then ask how many times have you done it since 2009.

you are assuming it is not done often, if it is indeed rare/exceptional it tends to be retained.

add

I agree on the enforcing of the law, but the law is not classified info....the public record is there for more than just history.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Another member of the GOP trying to hype this up.

Woops

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/charlie-rangel-irs-associated-press-comments-91398.html?hp=r6

Charlie Rangel: Obama answers not enough

Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) said Wednesday that he believes President Barack Obama owes the American public explanations for both the seizure of Associated Press phone records by the Department of Justice and the IRS targeting of conservative groups. “I don’t think anyone truly believes that the president has given us a sufficient answer for America, much less the press,” Rangel said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” “I think this is just the beginning and the whole idea of comparing this with Nixon, I really think is just, it doesn’t make much sense. But the president has to come forward and share why he did not alert the press they were going to do this. He has to tell the Americans, including me: What was this national security question? You just can’t raise the flag and expect to salute it every time without any reason and the same thing applies to the IRS.”

Link for rest

[visionary]

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/15/18277505-after-ap-leak-controversy-white-house-pushes-for-media-shield-law?lite

After AP leak controversy, White House pushes for media-shield law

Under fire for secret subpoenas of Associated Press phone records, the Obama administration has asked a key senator to revive legislation that would enhance protections for journalists trying to protect their sources.

A White House official called Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., on Wednesday to ask him to reintroduce the media shield law that he supported in 2009 but that never received a vote on the Senate floor. The push comes in the wake of Department of Justice subpoenas of a broad swath of AP's phone records, including several main numbers used by more than 100 reporters.

"This kind of law would balance national security needs against the public's right to the free flow of information. At minimum, our bill would have ensured a fairer, more deliberate process in this case," Schumer said in a statement.

But the bill also says that in some national security matters, this "balancing test" wouldn't be applied.

That's in part because of White House concerns about the law. In 2009, the White House objected to the shield law's use in national security situations -- like the one the AP believes triggered the secret subpoenas. The wire service reported in 2012 that a double agent had foiled a bomb plot in Yemen.

[Kilmer17]

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/15/18277505-after-ap-leak-controversy-white-house-pushes-for-media-shield-law?lite

Too bad Obama buried this same legislation in 09.

[DjTj]

Too bad Obama buried this same legislation in 09.

Do you have a source for Obama burying the 2009 legislation?

It looks like it was reported out of committee but never received a vote: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/s448

A 2008 version of the bill was filibustered by Republicans:

The Bush administration and some Republicans, including Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, say the exclusions in the bill aren't big enough and could hamper federal investigations of terrorism and other crimes. Kyl and Sen. John Cornyn of Texas also have taken issue with the definition of "journalists" who would be protected under the legislation.

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2008-07-31/news/0807300183_1_media-shield-shield-bill-republican-senators

[Larry]

Too bad Obama buried this same legislation in 09.

Your proof that Obama buried this in 09 is . . . ?

The article does mention one clause that the White House supposedly requested. (I can't tell, from the article, whether they requested it on 09, or now.) And it does mention what I think is the first hint at what supposedly got leaked:

From the tail of the link visionary posted:

The shield law would insulate journalists from fines and prison time when they refuse to reveal their sources in court cases. It allows journalists to appeal to a federal judge when they don't want to give up their sources to subpoena -- and let the judge decide whether public interest in the journalist's story outweighs the interests of the government.

But the bill also says that in some national security matters, this "balancing test" wouldn't be applied.

That's in part because of White House concerns about the law. In 2009, the White House objected to the shield law's use in national security situations -- like the one the AP believes triggered the secret subpoenas. The wire service reported in 2012 that a double agent had foiled a bomb plot in Yemen.

Attorney General Eric Holder on Tuesday called that leak "a very, very serious leak."

"This is among the top two or three serious leaks that I’ve ever seen," he said.

Observations:

1) Looks like this law wouldn't have anything to do with this particular data request (phone numbers.) It would simply protect reporters from taking the stand, personally.

(Doesn't necessarily make it a bad law. Just saying that I don't see anything that says this law would have changed anything, in this case.)

2) As to the topic of the leak that they're supposedly looking for?

Am I reading this correctly?

1. A bomb doesn't explode, in Yemen.
   
2. Some leaker decides that it would be neat to reveal that the guy who prevented the bomb from going off, is a double agent. (Working for us? Or somebody else.)
   
3. The AP, looking at a story about a bomb that didn't explode on one hand, and the potential "outing" of a double agent inside a terrorist organization, decides "print it!"

Have I got that right? Cause, if I do, then my opinion about the government going after the folks involved just went up. A lot.

[SkinsHokieFan]

http://www.cjr.org/the_kicker/obama_administration_opposing.php

Obama Administration Opposing Shield Law

Disappointing news today from the New York Times’s Charlie Savage:

The Obama administration has told lawmakers that it opposes legislation that could protect reporters from being imprisoned if they refuse to disclose confidential sources who leak material about national security, according to several people involved with the negotiations.

The administration this week sent to Congress sweeping revisions to a “media shield” bill that would significantly weaken its protections against forcing reporters to testify.

From 2009

It does appear to me that the only people who have any defense of this administration on this issue reside in this thread. When Charlie Rengel of all people thinks something isn't right, and the President claims he has no clue about it, there is an issue

[DjTj]

http://www.cjr.org/the_kicker/obama_administration_opposing.php

Obama Administration Opposing Shield Law

From 2009

Thanks.

You might as well link the New York Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/01/us/01shield.html?_r=0

It does appear to me that the only people who have any defense of this administration on this issue reside in this thread. When Charlie Rengel of all people thinks something isn't right, and the President claims he has no clue about it, there is an issue

As I have said in this thread, I think the DOJ definitely went about this the wrong way. I don't understand what risk they would have run by informing the AP before requesting the records and allowing them their day in court.

What they did is almost certainly legal, but they went about it the wrong way.

added: And I am probably against a media shield law in general. Reporters shouldn't be able to shield information relevant to a criminal investigation. Do we want a system where an eyewitness to a crime can talk to a reporter, but the police can't get that person's identity from the reporter?

The Obama administration could have gone to court against the AP and won access to the records. It seems like the only reason they didn't do so was excessive paranoia.

[PeterMP]

It does appear to me that the only people who have any defense of this administration on this issue reside in this thread. When Charlie Rengel of all people thinks something isn't right, and the President claims he has no clue about it, there is an issue

To echo what DjTj said and my first post in this thread:

1. The way it sounds I don't like it.

2. It doesn't sound like what they did is illegal.

When the executive branch does something that I don't like, but is legal, I don't blame the executive branch. I blame Congress and us.

[DjTj]

I also want to add that I don't like that the legislative conversations about this is a privilege for reporters. That would protect reporters but not the rest of us. What we need are some revisions to ECPA and the Patriot Act that make it a little more difficult for the government to get phone/internet records from telecom providers without prior notice to the account holder. Those types of subpoenas should be the exception rather than the rule, and the government should have the burden to show some real risk to the investigation before a judge approves them.