Michael Isikoff on the DOJ and AP

[ProSense]

He was a guest of the Rachel Maddow Show, video: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc-rachel_maddow_show/#51872612

>> on that issue of how widespread this dragnet was, as you put it, doesn't that affect whether or not this is legal? don't justice department rules upon this sort of thing say that things have to be targeted as narrowly as possible in order to protect the freedom of the press? that's why i'm wondering whether or not we've crossed over from bad taste in political intimidation into illegality.

>> well, there are justice department regulations on this who -- which do state these subpoenas for news organizations should be crafted as narrowly as possible for a limited period of time. and that's what the "a.p." in that extraordinary letter it wrote to attorney general holder today saying seems to be flouted here. but they're regulations, they're not laws. and this is a criminal investigation and they do have the absolute legal authority to do this any way they want. but they would have to explain why they're not following their own guidelines and regulations.

That is the key. News organizations can be subpoenaed, and AP was, and the DOJ had the legal authority to act.

Of course, people are demanding to know all the details, specifically the DOJ's explanations and justifications. Given the overreach of recent years, that's understandable. Still, what we know is that the DOJ subpoenaed the AP phone records, and AP is outraged by the scope.

White House: ‘No Knowledge’ Of DOJ Collecting AP Phone Records
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022839672

[woo me with science]

1. Gee, do you think that outrage over egregious surveillance of the press

could possibly lead to outrage over egregious surveillance of private citizens?

Yeah, like that's gonna happen.

[ProSense]

2. There

"Gee, do you think that outrage over egregious surveillance subpoena of phone records of the press..."

...fixed!

Here's a good response from the comments at Think Progress.

Matthew Rusk

The SCOTUS ruled in Smith v Maryland in1979 that who you call is not constitutionally protected because you have no expectation of privacy since you gave that number to the phone company. There is no constitutional need for a warrant, though Congress has the right to pass legislation requiring it (which I do not believe they have done). The AP is complaining that their First Amendment right as journalists are being threatened or interfered with, but they didn't seem to mind while private citizens have had their First Amendment rights to speech and free association threatened in the same way for almost 25 years.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/05/13/2005021/doj-yemen-aqap/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Maryland

Why The Department Of Justice Is Going After The Associated Press’ Records
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022838537

Justice subpoenaed AP phone records, news service says
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022838649

[woo me with science]

3. Oh, a ProSense Commercial.

I already heard this one in the other thread, though. Your apologism for surveilling journalists wasn't going too well over there, either.

[ProSense]

4. Actually, I

"Oh, a ProSense Commercial. I already heard this one in the other thread, though. Your apologism for surveilling journalists wasn't going too well over there, either."

...was trying to avoid the "blue linky" retort, but it appears you went with the "ProSense commercial" deflection instead.

Here's the reponse to your comment in the other thread. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2840119

[Cha]

5. thank you, ProSense.. the more information

coming out the Better!

[ProSense]

6. Yup. n/t