Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

xchrom

(108,903 posts)
Tue May 21, 2013, 09:13 AM May 2013

Obama administration mistakes journalism for espionage

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eugene-robinson-obama-administration-mistakes-news-for-espionage/2013/05/20/0cf398e8-c17e-11e2-8bd8-2788030e6b44_story.html

The Obama administration has no business rummaging through journalists’ phone records, perusing their e-mails and tracking their movements in an attempt to keep them from gathering news. This heavy-handed business isn’t chilling, it’s just plain cold.

It also may well be unconstitutional. In my reading, the First Amendment prohibition against “abridging the freedom .?.?. of the press” should rule out secretly obtaining two months’ worth of the personal and professional phone records of Associated Press reporters and editors, including calls to and from the main AP phone number at the House press gallery in the Capitol. Yet this is what the Justice Department did.


The unwarranted snooping, which was revealed last week, would be troubling enough if it were an isolated incident. But it is part of a pattern that threatens to redefine investigative reporting as criminal behavior.

The Post reported Monday that the Justice Department secretly obtained phone and e-mail records for Fox News reporter James Rosen, and that the FBI even tracked his movements in and out of the main State Department building. Rosen’s only apparent transgression? Doing what reporters are supposed to do, which is to dig out the news.
22 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Obama administration mistakes journalism for espionage (Original Post) xchrom May 2013 OP
Mmmm. Whistle-blowing too. n/t Smarmie Doofus May 2013 #1
Our millionaire press corps One of the 99 May 2013 #2
Imagine that. woo me with science May 2013 #10
Take a look up. One of the 99 May 2013 #20
I Disagree, Sir The Magistrate May 2013 #3
+1000 sinkingfeeling May 2013 #5
Yes. n/t cynatnite May 2013 #6
+1 - nt Ohio Joe May 2013 #8
Tracking someone's entrance in and out of a Government Building is entirely within the Govt purview. Hugin May 2013 #11
Yes, a crime for the person who released the classifed information. It is not a crime for the SlimJimmy May 2013 #13
And Tracing The Reporter, Sir, Was The Means Of Finding The Criminal The Magistrate May 2013 #14
No, it wasn't. The DOJ already knew where the leak was, and had no need to target a reporter SlimJimmy May 2013 #15
You Are Simply Wrong, Sir The Magistrate May 2013 #16
No, actually it's you that are simply wrong. Once a target has been likely identified, it then SlimJimmy May 2013 #17
Not a Fishing Expedition At All, Sir The Magistrate May 2013 #18
Sure, being under oath has no bearing on a person's testimony in front of a Congressional SlimJimmy May 2013 #19
Thank you. nt woo me with science May 2013 #22
As for Rosen, a federal judge has already ruled that the search was constitutional, and that notice msanthrope May 2013 #4
The Washington Post seems really upset railsback May 2013 #7
It appears someone is doing the work of the repulsive party madokie May 2013 #9
The media ProSense May 2013 #12
We have the most pampered press in the world. Pragdem May 2013 #21

One of the 99

(2,280 posts)
2. Our millionaire press corps
Tue May 21, 2013, 09:19 AM
May 2013

thinks they have more rights and privileges than the average person. If any average person did what the AP did, the FBI would be doing a lot more than looking at our phone records. They would be listening to our calls and be invading every part of our lives. The problem is that our millionaire press corps thinks they are better than the average person and deserve special treatment.

woo me with science

(32,139 posts)
10. Imagine that.
Tue May 21, 2013, 09:52 AM
May 2013

Imagine that our government would *ever* violate the privacy of ordinary citizens!

Unfortunately, it took surveillance of our free press for any of the mainstream media to begin to show even a remote interest in the growing assaults by government on our privacy and civil protections.

The Magistrate

(95,237 posts)
3. I Disagree, Sir
Tue May 21, 2013, 09:20 AM
May 2013

Both these items cited were disseminations of classified material that was legitimately classified. In one instance it affected an on-going operation of great value; in the other instance, it revealed a systematic arrangement in which a person with clearance routinely passed classified information to persons without such clearance, which is a straightforward crime.

Hugin

(32,773 posts)
11. Tracking someone's entrance in and out of a Government Building is entirely within the Govt purview.
Tue May 21, 2013, 09:57 AM
May 2013

Along with the other two claims I've seen about what was done in the Rosen Affair.

The Rosen/Fox case is some "me-too! me-too! me-too!" dog piling by Fox.



SlimJimmy

(3,171 posts)
13. Yes, a crime for the person who released the classifed information. It is not a crime for the
Tue May 21, 2013, 10:05 AM
May 2013

reporter to receive it, or even print it. The reporter was doing what reporters do, develop sources and dig for information. I think the Pentagon Papers made this abundantly clear.

The Magistrate

(95,237 posts)
14. And Tracing The Reporter, Sir, Was The Means Of Finding The Criminal
Tue May 21, 2013, 11:06 AM
May 2013

This is all perfectly legitimate investigation of genuine malfeasance.

SlimJimmy

(3,171 posts)
15. No, it wasn't. The DOJ already knew where the leak was, and had no need to target a reporter
Tue May 21, 2013, 11:32 AM
May 2013

as a co-conspirator. They were just fishing. The Attorney General was quite specific in his testimony before Congress recently. Why the judge signed a warrant is really beyond my understanding. Had opposing counsel had the opportunity to defend the reporter prior to the request, I seriously doubt a warrant would have been issued.

Though investigators had already targeted Kim as the likely source of the leak, they wanted Rosen's personal emails to help build their case. However, investigators had to first convince a judge to sign off on a warrant authorizing such a search, arguing that Rosen had potentially broken the law, too, "either as an aider, abettor, and/or co-conspirator."

http://theweek.com/article/index/244447/why-the-justice-department-spied-on-a-fox-news-reporter


“To our knowledge, the Department of Justice has never prosecuted a reporter," the Justice Department official told The Huffington Post. "No reporter has ever been charged by the Department of Justice simply for publishing information obtained through an illegal leak of classified information by a government official. At this time, we do not anticipate bringing any additional charges in this matter.”

Holder, during testimony before the House Judiciary Committee last week, said that targeting journalists had not "fared well in American history" and suggested there was a high bar for prosecutions. The focus, he said, "should be on those people who break their oath and put the American people at risk, not the reporters who gather the information.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/20/james-rosen-subpoena_n_3309678.html

The Magistrate

(95,237 posts)
16. You Are Simply Wrong, Sir
Tue May 21, 2013, 12:25 PM
May 2013

It takes all the sport out when the items you cite to prove yopur point contain material that demolishes it.

That a person is 'already targeted as a likely source of the leak' is far from 'they already knew who did it', and what investigators do then is take steps which 'will help build their case' in this instance nailing down the communications between their suspect and the person he was suspected of passing information to. That no one has been prosecuted to date under a statute does not mean a statute cannot or should not be invoked as an investigative tool, and this instance, there does seem to have ben a standing arrangement between the chief suspect and the reporter, invocation of conspiracy is well within bounds.

SlimJimmy

(3,171 posts)
17. No, actually it's you that are simply wrong. Once a target has been likely identified, it then
Tue May 21, 2013, 01:29 PM
May 2013

becomes a fishing expedition in order to strengthen a case. That is never a strong enough reason to go after this type of warrant. To posit that the reporter was a possible co-conspirator is nearly laughable. Let me say this as clearly as I can. He. was. doing. his. job. The very last person the DOJ should be targeting is a reporter. The AG himself said that the targeting of the reporter in these cases is not a good idea, and should not be the focus of any investigation. (you did read that part, right?) Chilling is not a strong enough word to describe the actions here. That you are arguing in favor of this type of conduct on the part of the DOJ (read FBI) speaks volumes.

And by the way, it's not sport - it's the protection of first amendment rights we are speaking of.




The Magistrate

(95,237 posts)
18. Not a Fishing Expedition At All, Sir
Tue May 21, 2013, 01:55 PM
May 2013

If it is a crime for person A to hand something to person B, even though it it is not a crime for person B to receive it, in order to prove the crime of person A, it must be nailed down that it was indeed received by person B. Further, if there is reason to believe there was an on-going arrangement between person A and person B for person A to commit crime on a routine basis, it is no stretch to consider person B to be engaged in collusion which could rise to the level of conspiracy. I do not think it necessary to pay too much attention to what is said to a Congressional committee, particularly when it is said in the midst of a scandal whoop-te-doo; people say what it strikes them as politic to say, and it should not be held against them....

SlimJimmy

(3,171 posts)
19. Sure, being under oath has no bearing on a person's testimony in front of a Congressional
Tue May 21, 2013, 03:39 PM
May 2013

Committee. Are you saying that the AG of the United States lied to Congress? Are you saying that the AG of the United States has no desire to protect the first amendment rights of journalists? Did you actually read what you wrote before you hit send?

As to the co-conspirator charge the FBI Agent was trying to establish, I guess we'll know when Rosen is charged in this ... oh, that's right, he's not going to be charged. What a surprise. I guess the FBI was on a fishing expedition after all, and used a dubious means to an end.

Maybe it would help your argument if you cited a single case of a journalist being prosecuted for receiving information from a confidential source as a co-conspirator. Just one will do.

 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
4. As for Rosen, a federal judge has already ruled that the search was constitutional, and that notice
Tue May 21, 2013, 09:27 AM
May 2013

need not have been provided to him---thus the warrant:

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/local/affidavit-for-search-warrant/162/

was properly executed--

http://images.politico.com/global/2013/05/20/lamberthrosen.html


As for the AP, there is little to no prohibition on a grand jury seeking to subpoena third-party records, even for journalists. I note that Mr. Robinson cannot name what statute he thinks was violated.

madokie

(51,076 posts)
9. It appears someone is doing the work of the repulsive party
Tue May 21, 2013, 09:51 AM
May 2013

This has all been gone over and been shown to be the correct action already. last week. even.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
12. The media
Tue May 21, 2013, 10:00 AM
May 2013
The Post reported Monday that the Justice Department secretly obtained phone and e-mail records for Fox News reporter James Rosen, and that the FBI even tracked his movements in and out of the main State Department building. Rosen’s only apparent transgression? Doing what reporters are supposed to do, which is to dig out the news.

...mistake Fox Noise for journalism. The complicit media are digging up old news stories to pile onto the AP story.

WaPo: DOJ Spied On Fox News Reporter (a perfect example of media complicity - updated)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022871121

Well well well, Fox News was a co-conspirator in leaking classified docs...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022872403

They entire purpose is to shill for the GOP, jump at any opportunity to help them portray everything the administration does as a "scandal" and use their status to excuse illegal/unethical committed by Republicans.

WaPo fact checker gives WH claim that Repubs doctored email to smear the President three Pinocchios
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022877163

They did the same thing for Mitt Romney.
 

Pragdem

(233 posts)
21. We have the most pampered press in the world.
Wed May 22, 2013, 10:17 AM
May 2013

This is just more first world problems self-pity bullshit that we can expect from the press these days.

The self-fellating DC press bubble is completely out of touch with the concerns of the AVERAGE American, even moreso than those they cover.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Obama administration mist...