General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI Think I'll Side With The ACLU On This...
Justice Department Secretly Subpoenas AP Phone RecordsACLU
May 13, 2013
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
<snip>
New York– The Department of Justice secretly obtained two months' worth of phone records of Associated Press reporters and editors, according to an AP story.
The following statement can be attributed to Laura W. Murphy, director of the American Civil Liberties Union Washington Legislative Office:
"The media's purpose is to keep the public informed and it should be free to do so without the threat of unwarranted surveillance. The Attorney General must explain the Justice Department's actions to the public so that we can make sure this kind of press intimidation does not happen again."
The following statement can be attributed to Ben Wizner, director of the ACLU Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project:
"Obtaining a broad range of telephone records in order to ferret out a government leaker is an unacceptable abuse of power. Freedom of the press is a pillar of our democracy, and that freedom often depends on confidential communications between reporters and their sources."
<snip>
Link: http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/justice-department-secretly-subpoenas-ap-phone-records
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
xchrom
(108,903 posts)
uponit7771
(93,532 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)
GoneOffShore
(18,020 posts)Sometimes there are no words.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)to issue secret third party subpoenas.
Also, the admin already new that AP had the info. They could have gone before a judge and argued national security at that time.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)
Hissyspit
(45,790 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)
frylock
(34,825 posts)Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)Are you gonna be alright ???
Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Because "Fascism is painless it brings on many changes and I can take or leave it if I please."
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)
GeorgeGist
(25,570 posts)of the NRA on guns.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)
backscatter712
(26,357 posts)Yes, I know this is pen-register data. Not the actual contents of telephone conversations, but logs of who called whom and when. That's still significant information, which the feds use in traffic analysis, and I consider this a serious breach of privacy and of freedom of the press.
If there's a good reason to do this, like investigating leaks of classified information as the DOJ claims, they should be able to go to a judge and GET A WARRANT!
Why is it that asking for law enforcement to follow the Constitution and the Bill of Rights somehow endangers national security? Getting a judge to sign a warrant isn't that hard.
Warpy
(114,613 posts)This wasn't some middle of the night, let's-chase-the-FISA-warrant-next-week, hurry up job.
They convened a grand jury and that grand jury thought the leak was sensitive enough to issue the subpoena.
Getting a judge to sign a warrant isn't that hard. Getting a grand jury to agree on a subpoena is much harder.
Lady Freedom Returns
(14,198 posts)I have, in the past, handle this kind of thing when I was working the newsroom.
The DOJ made the policy due to Watergate. They are to tell AP what they wanted, then they were to go before a Judge with the request and hash it out.
The DOJ ran strait through that long standing policy by using a grand jury. They were out for blood of a whistle blower.
If this disgusting thing is not brought to question, is allowed to become a precedent, you might as well just through away the towel for a free press, thus a free people.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
SteveG
(3,109 posts)I'd be screaming bloody murder if it wasn't a grand jury subpoena. I want to see if there are indictments. A congresscritter may be involved or possibly an aide.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)that speculation didn't make it so.
Do you have a source to support your statement "The subpoena was issued by a grand jury"? A legitimate one?
wercal
(1,370 posts)What judge wants the twofer of:
1) Surveiling the media
2) Surveiling the Congress
I'd like to think that a judge would have a very high standard that would have to be met, before issuing such a warrant.
Which answers the question as to why Holder (or his deputy) didn't apply for a warrant.
backscatter712
(26,357 posts)Law enforcement shouldn't be able to violate privacy at a whim. They should be able to prove why they need to do it, and if they can't manage that to a figure that's friendly to law enforcement 99% of the time, they shouldn't get one.
wercal
(1,370 posts)I wasn't trying to justify the DOJ's actions.
The fact that they didn't get a warrant speaks volumes...it means they knew that they couldn't.
All of this need for secrecy is complete horse manure. They couldn't trust a judge to keep it secret...yet they had to rely on the phone companies to keep the same secret?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"I Think I'll Side With The ACLU On This..."
...I understand why civil liberties groups are upset, but the fact remains that the DOJ's actions are legal based on what is known.
Frankly, the defense of the media here doesn't convince me because AP's motives are suspect. Now, something good can come out of this.
By Gabe Rottman
Update: The administration has asked Sen. Schumer to reintroduce the Free Flow of Information Act, Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) just announced that he will do so in the House, and Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas) introduced a similar bill today. The administration should certainly be commended for taking proactive steps to prevent this from happening again. That said, the administration can’t get in the way this time. The demand in 2009 for a broad exception for national security leaks cases delayed the bill, and tempered enthusiasm among Democrats for the bill in the face of strong opposition by certain Republicans. The 2013 bill must protect against what happened here with the AP, and it’s not clear that the 2009 White House compromise would have done so.
Although the president's press secretary noted yesterday then-Senator Obama's support for a federal shield law to protect reporters from having to disclose their sources, he failed to mention how the White House deep-sixed a comprehensive shield bill back in 2009. That bill could have prevented the extraordinary Associated Press subpoena, which was disclosed this week.
Back in 2009, various stakeholders—including Republicans in the House, Sens. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Arlen Specter (D-Pa.), and a broad coalition of free press and public interest groups—came together to support the Free Flow of Information Act. Although not perfect, the original bill contained express safeguards requiring the administration to exhaust all other means of obtaining the information sought and to tailor subpoenas narrowly, along with other safeguards to preserve source anonymity.
While initially backing the legislation, the administration abruptly reversed course in late 2009, demanding that the bill contain what amounted to an exemption for national security leak cases and severely limiting judicial discretion under the measure. The bill died and has yet to be resurrected.
<...>
And yet, despite the clear public interest in revealing this government misconduct, the Obama administration—the "most transparent administration in history"—will have as one of its legacies an unprecedented crackdown on the unauthorized disclosure of classified information. It has prosecuted many more leakers (twice as many as all previous administrations combined), and pursued leak investigations more aggressively than anyone else. The time is ripe for a federal law that would protect reporters from having to disclose their sources (with limited exceptions to ensure due process for criminal defendants and to prevent actual and imminent harm).
http://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech-national-security/dojs-ap-phone-logs-grab-highlights-renewed-need-shield-law
"The seizure of AP's phone records is legal"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022850071
Information about the shield laws are posted at the link.
Matariki
(18,775 posts)I agree with you there.
Can you explain why the Obama administration has prosecuted more whistle blowers than all previous administrations combined?
Logical
(22,457 posts)
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)And don't forget it was the Republicans that demanded the leaker be sought out and found.
If there is a top level person in the government leaking secret info that could put lives a risk then he/she should be found ASAP and put on trial.
former9thward
(33,424 posts)then why was it left to Republicans to demand the leaker be sought out and found?
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)I believe Obama addresses the issue... and the Republicans started hollering then than the democrats in order to make President Obama look bad.
Maybe someone else here has a link to the time line.
Zen Democrat
(5,901 posts)I have no love for the AP. I've read so many false, exaggerated and slanted stories emanating from the AP that I don't respect them as some fountain of first amendment rights.
The ACLU isn't the be all and end all for me either. I agree with them about 60-70% of the time. Not this time.
This glorification of press "freedom" involves a fantasy about an Ideal America that never was. Some members of the press are are honorable and even heroic. Most of them are lazy ideologues who say and write what they are told, or expected to say, and don't fight for shit. People who read the foreign press are generally more educated about what goes on in America than people who read the domestic scripted and scrubbed "news" sanitized for the clean American mind.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)DesMoinesDem
(1,569 posts)They don't support every single action of Democrats so they had to go!
Matariki
(18,775 posts)certainly not making excuses, posting how it was legal, or saying stuff about 'being safe'.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"If this was a Republican administration that did this, DU would be hopping mad.
certainly not making excuses, posting how it was legal, or saying stuff about 'being safe'"
...no.
Reporter Says He First Learned of C.I.A. Operative From Rove
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022850304
Matariki
(18,775 posts)had a Republican administration done it.
Linking to your own post doesn't mean anything.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Actually yes. Most folks here would be VERY angry over sweeping surveillence of reporters had a Republican administration done it.
Linking to your own post doesn't mean anything."
...mischaracterizing what actually happens helps. There was no "sweeping surveillence of reporters." Phone records were supoenaed.
"Linking to your own post doesn't mean anything."
Yeah, I guess ignoring that the Plame investigation involved actually targeting reporters disrupts the "if it was under a Republican" meme.
Matariki
(18,775 posts)not unprecedented spying on a large number of reporters for months - including their personal home and cell phones.
But please, explain away.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"The Plame case targeted specific reporter(s) for a specific reason not unprecedented spying on a large number of reporters for months "
...with the exaggerations. You're actually claiming that targeting reporters is better than not targeting reporters. Reporters were not targeted by or in subpoenaing the phone records.
Matariki
(18,775 posts)Judith Miller was using her 'journalistic immunity' to protect the criminal outing of a CIA agent.
The current matter was a 'fishing expedition' targeting people who hadn't committed a crime or aided a criminal. It violated their privacy.
Big difference.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"They were spied on."
No on was "spied on"
"Judith Miller was using her 'journalistic immunity' to protect the criminal outing of a CIA agent.
The current matter was a 'fishing expedition' targeting people who hadn't committed a crime or aided a criminal. It violated their privacy.
Big difference."
So you're OK with going after Judith Miller and the Plame leaker, but case, and no one yet knows the full details, is a "fishing expedition"?
It is a criminal investigation, phone records were legally subpoenaed, journalist were not targeted and implying that they were is a mischaracterization.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)But, in case you've forgotten. Subpoenas were issued directly to the reporters which they and their lawyers could address in court. Out in the open. TRANSPARENTLY. They weren't investigated in secret through a back-door 3rd party subpoena.
tavalon
(27,985 posts)It's times like this when I realize there is a large group of cheerleaders here, who really don't care to have real dialogue when it comes to "their" President. Now, the last President, DU was relentless, as they should have been and very fastidious in sticking to the Constitution and excoriating violations, of which there were many.
I voted for this man twice, and even knowing what I know today, I'm okay with him being in the White House. That said, this was a breech of the Constitution and I'm not going to pretend it's okay because it's our guy. It isn't.
Matariki
(18,775 posts)But some things, oy. And they are NOT okay just because it's "our guy".
As for the cheerleaders - it's fun to speculate which are simply politically simple and which are paid professionals 
tavalon
(27,985 posts)and read a lot here has a pretty good understanding of the political process and I just don't think we're all that, so paid professionals, maybe, but I doubt it.
This is a really tough situation, that should be talked about, argued about and hopefully we can coalesce around a similar pov, but I find some of these posts to just be cheerleading. Obama doesn't deserve cheerleaders, he deserves a base and a constituency willing to demand the best from him.
I suspect right now most of the liberal organizations, us included, have our jaws on the floor and are, in our different ways, scrambling to find our position. I believe the Constitution clearly delineates what our POV should be but others feel that other statutes take precedence.
Matariki
(18,775 posts)part of the inevitable problem inherent in a two party system, I suppose. It's very naive and simplistic and truly detrimental to a functioning democracy.
As for professional posters, I'd bet good money on some of them. They show up on cue, with unwavering talking points. And I should know better by now to not interact with them.
tavalon
(27,985 posts)This isn't a fucking team sport. This is our lives.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)It had to be said.
The level of government skepticism on DU plummets when a D does something instead of an R.
Logical
(22,457 posts)forestpath
(3,102 posts)
Viking12
(6,012 posts)Teabaggers hate everything about the ACLU.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)This violation of the press is hardly an aberration in the increasingly broad, intrusive, authoritarian state that has been cultivated and protected since 9/11. Anyone who has not read it should take a long look at the ACLU's detailed, damning indictment of what is being done to our fundamental rights and privacies, first under Bush and now under Obama:
Report - A Call to Courage: Reclaiming Our Liberties Ten Years After 9/11
http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/acalltocourage.pdf
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)tavalon
(27,985 posts)and for that matter, Ben Franklin. I'm not willing to give up liberty for the false sense of safety it might provide.
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)in danger because of the leak. There ought to be some limits on what media or journalists publish where the lives of our men and women working abroad or even at home are concerned.
gateley
(62,683 posts)there might be legitimate cause for concern here.
mike_c
(37,051 posts)No, there shouldn't. Wow, what a slippery slope THAT is!
demwing
(16,916 posts)You cannot libel or defame. You cannot incite violence or treason. Should these limits be removed?
mike_c
(37,051 posts)I suppose I started from the premise that journalists have objective standards and professional integrity, and that what we're talking about is protection of state secrets from news reporting. No, I do not think it is necessary or advisable to remove libel laws or laws against inciting violence, as long as those laws are not used to impede objective journalism.
demwing
(16,916 posts)Now, we're just haggling over price...
demwing
(16,916 posts)and professional integrity, do you then include "objective standards" and "professional integrity" as two qualities displayed here by the AP?
Little Star
(17,055 posts)read this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022848186
That's why the AP is so pissed.
Also don't forget about sweet little NYT's Judith Miller & her bestest friend Scooter Libby.
The press are not always saints. Nothing is black and white, there's always gray areas.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)When he warned about the bomb that was going to go off. He saved American lives. The lives of children and babies on that plane. Mothers and fathers. And he could have saved many more.
But AP and their little reporter didn't give a shit about human life. Money and fame are all they wanted. Fuck them. They deserve to lose every lead they ever had or ever will have. Choices have consequences. They chose to expose him. They didn't have to. They're suffering the consequences of their choice. Good. Did they fucking READ the Patriot Act? Another consequence of poor investigation.
Did they think they could fuck with the CIA and MI6, the FBI and MI5, the UK, the US and Yemen and nothing would happen??? Seriously AP??? If I were AP, I would be much more concerned about what intelligence agencies of other, unrelated countries might be doing to your phone lines, etc. Because there's going to be international interest in the identity of the leaker. And they don't have any rules.
OKNancy
(41,832 posts)around and that the USA is always, always wrong, no matter what.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)is a poor, misunderstood kid and that Boston was a "police state" that cruelly oppressed its citizens under a lockdown as it conducted a ruthless manhunt with tanks and vicious dogs for 2 unarmed, unjustly vilified boys.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
villager
(26,001 posts)Those liberal retards!
They_Live
(3,372 posts)pretty much eliminate the 4th Amendment for Everybody? Isn't the N S A recording all phone conversations anyway, y'know, "just in case"?
mwrguy
(3,245 posts)Maybe their tax status needs to be looked at.
randome
(34,845 posts)So why hasn't the AP printed the letter they received? Was it the result of a grand jury? They could redact sensitive portions. They could state that they aren't allowed to give out that information.
Instead, they simply left that part out because, presumably, it puts them in a bad light.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]
underpants
(196,488 posts)it is a SCANDAL!!! 
The AP was asked not to published it then was told and they did it anyway.
JimDandy
(7,318 posts)through legal means by subpoenaing phone registers is not unwarranted:
"The media's purpose is to keep the public informed and it should be free to do so without the threat of unwarranted surveillance."
and 20 phone lines out of probably hundreds seems pretty targeted as opposed to "a broad range of telephone records".
I've always really appreciated the ACLU's work, but unless something comes out that actually supports their opinion on this matter, and as much as I'm disappointed in what the attorney general hasn't prosecuted, I'll have to give this one to the DOJ.
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)
madokie
(51,076 posts)Its clear why this was done and not only was it done it was the right thing to do and for the right reason.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)This flies in the face of our founding principles...
Please tell me what other principles you're willing to abandon.
Or is the US of A just like any other country; an interesting piece of real estate, with an interesting culture.
Ya know... a bunch of countries over time came around to follow our principles...
Why would we turn on ourselves, and them, now ?
