Obama: ‘No Apologies’ For Investigating Leaks Of Classified Information

[DonViejo]

Source: TPM

Asked to address the controversial seizure of phone logs from Associated Press journalists by the Department of Justice, President Barack Obama on Thursday said he had no regrets for prosecuting individuals responsible for leaking classified information because they placed the country at risk.

"I make no apologies and I don't think the American people would expect me as commander-in-chief not to be concerned about information that might compromise their missions or might get them killed," he said, standing alongside Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan in the White House Rose Garden.

"I also think it's important to recognize," he added, "that, you know, when we express concern about leaks at a time when I've still got 60,000 plus troops in Afghanistan and I've still got a whole bunch of intelligence officers around the world who are in risky situations in outposts that in some cases are as dangerous as the outpost in Benghazi, that part of my job is to make sure that we're protecting what they do while still accommodating for the need for information."

The Associated Press and a slew of media organizations filed vehement protests after the Department of Justice revealed it had seized phone records of three AP bureaus in connection to an investigation of an administration leak following a foiled bomb plot in Yemen last year.

full article at link

Read more: http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/obama-no-apologies-for-investigating-leaks-of-classified

[phleshdef]

1. Good. Hit back at these mother fuckers.

[rightsideout]

43. Ditto that

[wordpix]

72. megadittoes & let's reopen Chainee's leak of Valerie Plame working for CIA

while we're at it. And KKKarl, too.

[99th_Monkey]

2. Mr Hope & Change doubles down on unconstitutional infringements of basic rights

This is getting beyond the pale.

Obama's rationale seems to be, "well, it just isn't feasible for the USA to
bully the rest of the world around, with assassination, drones and troops
on the ground, if we don't have a draconian Police State in the "Homeland"
to make all of our lies seem remotely "plausible", and keep all our secrets
safe."

Obama's whole premise reeks of Imperial hubris, and should be very concerning
to DU peeps who still give a rats ass about the US constitution.

[snooper2]

4. CALEA and FISA warrants have been around for a LONG time...

Deal with it..

[99th_Monkey]

8. Please see

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014485013#post7

[AndrewJacksonFaction]

57. *

looks as if some folks pointed out your error in interpretations of the First Amendment, and how the records were obtained legally.

[99th_Monkey]

67. "legally" ~nt

[cstanleytech]

5. Ok, I'll bite. What was the unconstitutional infringement that was committed?

[99th_Monkey]

7. Oh, just a "trivial" little matter, called "Freedom of the Press"

&feature=player_embedded


The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights.

[phleshdef]

9. Freedom of the Press is not infringed by looking at phone records to find a classified info leaker.

And in the case of this leak, which put lives in dangers, lives of people who are already taking enormous risk on behalf of their country, its fully justified to look at some phone records.

If only Bush would've went after similar leakers like Cheney....

[tavalon]

12. These conversations aren't one way and besides, it's a really dumb leaker who gives information

over the phone. IMO, this is meant to keep the press in line. Not okay. Not okay at all.

[phleshdef]

16. Prove that its meant to "keep the press in line".

You can't just say "stuff" without proof.

The fact of the matter is, there are laws that establish the right of the government to classify information. Deal with it.

There are laws that allow the government to pursue someone leaking classified information. Deal with it.

[tavalon]

19. I'll edit

I said that wrong. It needed an IMO, in front of it. I don't have any proof. We do have proof of what was done (and I firmly believe it to be unconstitutional) but I don't have any proof for why.

[99th_Monkey]

20. Does the phrase "Chilling Effect" mean ANYTHING to you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect

[phleshdef]

22. Not in this circumstance, no it means nothing.

You can't expect the government to sit by and do nothing when someone is leaking classified information. They have the RIGHT to try and find out who is doing it. Period.

[99th_Monkey]

28. I thought as much

Your notion of "balance of powers" (if you even have one) is more than a little
out-of-balance, in favor of heavy-handed government intrusion, regardless of the
loss of liberties and rights that imbalance creates in society.

So should I presume that you are also a champion of the Patriot Act and
NDAA? ... "necessary" measures to "keep us all safe" .. is that correct?

[phleshdef]

42. What a load of horse shit.

Legally obtaining phone records to track down people who are outing intelligence agents isn't "heavy handed government intrusion". That's a painfully idiotic characterization.

And no, I'm against the Patriot Act and the part of the 2011 NDAA that you are referring to (there is no 1 NDAA). I am 100% FOR tracking down leakers of classified information. If that classified information exposes the government as having done something illegal itself and the leaker didn't release anything other than information regarding the illegal activity, then I believe said leaker should receive immunity from prosecution. But in either event, the government has the absolute right to track down leakers, period. Especially when it concerns the outing of intelligence agents.

But I should presume that you are a Dick Cheney/Scooter Libby backer and are perfectly fine with people outing CIA agents and putting their lives in further danger.

[COLGATE4]

47. K&R X 100!

All the Constitutional 'absolutisrs', including both the 2A'ers and now the 1A'ers are just plain wrong. There is no Constitutional infringement here - the DOA obtained the phone records pursuant to subpoena and in accord with its own regulations. Neither is there a chilling effect here, except for a chill on those who choose to leak national secrets (remember Valerie Plame???) and put American lives at risk.

[99th_Monkey]

48. OK, good.

so both our "presumptions" are incorrect (I'm no Cheney/Libby backer).

We merely disagree about the current AP situation, period.

I think this is where we agree to disagree, and call it good.

[patrice]

52. K&R a million! Thank you for speaking for me! & especially that about "the NDAA" . . . that's been

bugging me for months, but I guess I just gave up on it.

[treestar]

54. +1 The Valerie Plame analogy ties them up

Since they want to prosecute Cheney for outing her, they are inconsistent. Then Cheney was just exercising his First Amendment rights, if they insist it is always OK to leak government classified documents. The ravings regarding Manning also include this feature - like it is inherently wrong for the government to classify anything.

[99th_Monkey]

68. No prove whatsoever has been forthcoming, only speculation & heresay

with underlying presumptions that since "Obama/Holder said
it's all good" everyone should STFU and not care about the AP
debacle.

Maybe I missed something, if so, bring it on.

[treestar]

70. You've missed a lot

You're looking at it shallowly and your characterization is wrong, just what you want it to be.

The government does classify some information, legally, and it is a crime to leak it.

[99th_Monkey]

78. So Chris Hedges POV on this is looking at this "shallowly", then

then we must be living on two different planets.

[ucrdem]

83. Chris Hedges belongs on FOX news.

Also, he's beginning to resemble Turdblossom:

[Comrade Grumpy]

103. Yeah, because Hedges is such a conservative. Sheesh.

[ucrdem]

104. He's a demagogue who carries their water

and very little of what he says is accurate if you take the time to examine it closely. Example:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2851535

And that's just one paragraph.

[DirkGently]

98. There is no "Valerie Plame analogy."

That's a completely dishonest talking point. Cheney revealed a CIA operative's name to the press. The AP reported we'd captured a bomb. After the government reassured everyone that the bomb had "always been under control," it was possible to deduce the existence of a *British* mole in Yemen.

Please explain how these two things are the same.

[JustAnotherGen]

92. +1

[DirkGently]

97. Actually, the horseshit is all yours.

What you and others are carefully tap-dancing around are

1. The insanely broad scope of the records subpoenaed. They captured reporters' personal phones for months. The captured records from the Congressional press gallery. AP's entire reporting machinery was watched. It's overbroad, and it's chilling to freedom of the press

2. It appears DOJ violated its own guidelines, which call for speaking to press agencies and reporters whenever possible before seeking information. There was no need for this to be a secret search -- AP isn't the enemy.

3. The suggestion that AP outed a CIA agent is an utter canard. All AP revealed was that the bomb had been captured. A government official later stated that the bomb had always been under control. Taken together, this suggested there was a mole (a UK mole, not CIA) in a Yemeni Al Quaeda cell. There is zero parallel between that and Dick & Scooter outing Plame.

4. This kind of pursuit of leaks is not in opposition to leaks like Cheney's -- it's the other side of the same dirty coin. The Obama administration leaks like a fire hydrant when it wants information -- like the drone killing of a terrorist -- out in public. Then it comes down like a hammer on leaks it doesn't like. The result in both cases is the same: the press is intimidated and the public doesn't get to know what the government is up to.

There's no certainty the subpoenas were not unconstitutional. They weren't vetted by a court, and the First Amendment trumps executive power every time.

It is despicable to see people trying to minimize this attack on the press. This is exactly the kind of "horseshit" Dems and progressives are supposed to oppose.

[treestar]

53. How is it a loss of liberty that one can't leak classified documents by law?

Do you want us to do with zero national security? Bush may have carried it too far, but you're carrying it too far the other way.

[Yo_Mama]

59. There are also longstanding regs that govern seizing journalist phone records

Which were violated. Deal with it.
http://cfr.vlex.com/vid/regard-toll-interrogation-indictment-19679461

[phleshdef]

60. And you apparently didn't read your own link.

(g) In requesting the Attorney General's authorization for a subpoena for the telephone toll records of members of the news media, the following principles will apply:

There should be reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been committed and that the information sought is essential to the successful investigation of that crime

Releasing classified information is a crime. Deal with it.

[msanthrope]

84. Really? Which reg was violated? nt

[DirkGently]

100. These.

(c) Negotiations with the media shall be pursued in all cases in which a subpoena to a member of the news media is contemplated. These negotiations should attempt to accommodate the interests of the trial or grand jury with the interests of the media. Where the nature of the investigation permits, the government should make clear what its needs are in a particular case as well as its willingness to respond to particular problems of the media.

(d) Negotiations with the affected member of the news media shall be pursued in all cases in which a subpoena for the telephone toll records of any member of the news media is contemplated where the responsible Assistant Attorney General determines that such negotiations would not pose a substantial threat to the integrity of the investigation in connection with which the records are sought. Such determination shall be reviewed by the Attorney General when considering a subpoena authorized under paragraph (e) of this section.

No contact. No negotiations. Done in secret, as though dealing with an enemy agency.

[msanthrope]

101. Dude...you proved my point. The first sentence of (d) gives discretion to the AAG.

Your statutory interpretation skills need work.

[DirkGently]

102. Dude. Do you know what "discretion" means?

If it means the rule doesn't count, that's not really a rule, now, is it?

[msanthrope]

105. Well, now you know why Senator Obama supported a press shield law. But I fail to

see why the AP should get protections you do not.

[DirkGently]

106. Why don't you ask Jefferson & Madison why they

put freedom of the press in the First Amendment?

Maybe they'd had some experience with what happens when government gets to harass and intimidate journalists.

And it's not a freedom to which individuals are not entitled. None of us should be subjected to unwarranted governmental spying based on our communications.

I don't give a shit what Obama supports or doesn't support. I don't even think press shield laws are the point or are particularly helpful. No one in this case was trying to coerce a journalist to give up a source. They didn't even ask. They just set up a secret spying operation instead.

Because, you know, they felt it was necessary, and didn't want to bother a judge first.

THIS was wrong. THIS was unwarranted spying on the public's mechanism for obtaining information, including information government sources sometimes wish were not available.

I think that's important. You clearly don't.

[msanthrope]

107. Freedom of the press doesn't extend to cover criminal activity. Grand juries can

subpoena third-party records at will. If a grand jury subpoenaed your phone records, there isn't a federal regulation that suggests the government negotiate with you.

The grand jury here can and did investigate. I suspect the target letters will be sent soon.

[DirkGently]

108. Suspicion of criminal activity does not trump the First Amendment

You imply there is an absolute right for law enforcement to spy on journalists wherever a supposed leak has occurred. That is not the law, and it is contrary to every decent democratic principal.

Would you make the same argument if Bush was in office?

This is a rightwing argument you're making. In the America you describe, we'd still be fighting the Vietnam War and celebrating Nixon's successful second term.


We're supposed to be the ones who can make qualitative distinctions on important issues.

The widespread collection of information, as well as the apparent delay in notifying AP, both appear to be yet another violation the government's own regulations, 28 C.F.R. sec. 50.10. In 2010, the DOJ Inspector General reported on three other violations, involving the Washington Post and New York Times. The regulations require that, "wherever possible" subpoenas of records of the news media should be "directed at material information regarding a limited subject matter, should cover a reasonably limited period of time and should avoid requiring production of a large volume of unpublished material."

None of those limits appear to have been observed here. It seems impossible to imagine how a subpoena for all the records of call to and from AP's main switchboard, for example, is as narrowly tailored as the law required. Importantly, the regulations anticipate negotiation with the news media prior to subpoena, which also didn't occur. And in any event the regulations require notification to the news media within 45 days of any receipt of any information, with another 45 days possible with additional authorization. Since the timeframe of the records is a year ago, it seems likely that the government did not abide by this regulation either. While the regulations do not allow a lawsuit, violations of them can be grounds for discipline for governmental officials.

https://www.eff.org/es/deeplinks/2013/05/doj-subpoena-ap-journalists-shows-need-protect-calling-records

[brooklynite]

95. Of course you can

People here do it all the time, and "we all know" is one of the most popular memes.

[Voice for Peace]

55. I don't agree.. I think they are trying to find out who the leaker is.

[leftyohiolib]

31. which put lives in dangers , national security all blanket statements that attempt to coerce people

into backing down and letting the government have it's way with people.

[phleshdef]

34. I'm not even sure what you just said...

But the press outing intelligence agents definitely puts the lives of those intelligence agents in danger. Whoever leaked that information to the press should be found and prosecuted, just as Cheney should've been when he did the same to Valerie Plame.

[JDPriestly]

66. I am aware of Smith in which the Supreme Court held that pen registers could be subpoenaed.

Do you know of a case that specifically dealt with whether the pen register of an organization enjoying First Amendment rights could be subpoenaed.

I have been concerned for a long time (since I first heard of the Patriot Act) about the ability of the government to obtain through a back door information about potential witnesses and strategy in law suits and criminal cases by subpoenaing such records from a phone company or internet provide from a lawyer. Alternatively, a government attorney or agency could, theoretically or simply put and attorney under surveillance.

While I understand the rulings about pen registers in general, I really wonder what the ruling would be when the right of the government to information about the dates and times of calls conflicted with the rights of clients to confidentiality in their trials, to confront witnesses and to remain silent. This AP situation presents a similar question about who prevails when the right to freedom of the press conflicts with the government's right to subpoena or obtain phone and similar records.

Do you know whether there is established law on this?

I am not directly involved in this. It is just of intellectual interest to me.

[cstanleytech]

27. Yes, a nice quote of the first amendment now how was a legally obtained wiretap an infringment

of the freedom of the press? Was the paper stopped from printing the story? Were the reporters arrested and or charged?

[99th_Monkey]

33. If you watched that Chris Hedges clip, you would know

And if anyone in the Universe KNOWS about this kind of stuff,
it's this guy, because he's an award-winning journo who has
covered numerous hot spots and shadowy goings-on, and
CLEARLY feels terrified by the AP affair, noting the "chilling
effect" that has virtually shut down many foreign investigative
journalists' activities.

Shrug it off at your own peril. The draconian repressive actions
you ask about, are no doubt a preview of coming attractions,
once everyone accepts this incident, as "oh well, what can you
do?" ... then all bets are off what will happen.

[cstanleytech]

35. Sorry but I rather form my own opinions rather than base it on someone elses.

To put it into context, would you trust the word of Antonin Scalia on any legal matter since he is a sitting Supreme Court judge?

[patrice]

49. All true except that Chris Hedges represents ONE perspective, not THE perspective, just

that RELATIVE to his own, and such like-minded individuals, experiences and understandings, which do not, of course, speak for the experiences and understandings of ALL Americans.

If what is being leaked is important to the people, it deserves the respect of agreed upon processes that preserve the people's resources for processing and applying or not that which is learned from leakage. Chris Hedges et al have no special privileges in this and wide-open leakage anarchy is a threat to everyone, but most especially to folks like Ambassador Stevens, even if it does occassionally result in fame and maybe even a Pullitzer for some messianic types.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

39. Not win nationa security is compromised. There are limitations to the First Amendment.

[treestar]

51. Is that all you ever intend to learn about it?

There is a lot of case law interpreting that. It is ignorant to simply quote the First and from there, anything that does not sound right to you is wrong. It does not work that simply.

[midnight]

69. Extinguish the free press because it's in the best interest of national security?

I would think it's in our best interest to keep our free press as the best way to ensure our national security....

[tavalon]

11. The very first amendment to the constitution

We think of it as the Freedom of Speech amendment, but it's a little longer than that.

[MNBrewer]

61. If everything is classified then nothing can be spoken of

without criminal charges coming. Over classification is the problem here, not leaks.

[phleshdef]

75. Are you nuts? The identities of intelligence officers in the field is "over classification"?

That's what was leaked and that IS a problem.

[MNBrewer]

82. Are you kidding?

If you can find that identity leaked I'd be very surprised.

[MNBrewer]

85. Yeah, right.

http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/15/18280953-bomb-plot-briefing-may-undercut-dojs-case-for-ap-records-seizure?lite

Within hours after the AP published its May 7, 2012 story, then-White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan, currently the director of the CIA, held a background conference call in which he assured television network commentators that the bomb plot was never a threat to the American public or aviation safety.

Brennan’s account came after the AP reported what it called “an intelligence victory for the United States,” saying intelligence officials had thwarted an “ambitious plot” by an al Qaeda affiliate in Yemen “to destroy a U.S. bound airliner” using a refined underwear bomb.

U.S. officials say that, when they were first contacted by the AP, they were concerned publication of the story would endanger the life of a British informant who had penetrated the group. AP executives say they agreed to hold their story until they were assured by government officials that “national security concerns had passed.”

[99th_Monkey]

93. I'd like see where you get that

Admittedly, I have NOT read extensively on this issue, so a link
would be appreciated, where reliable independent sources have
convincingly proven that "identities of intelligence officers" IS
what triggered meddling with AP journalists communique.

So if YOU DO have such proof, I'd love to see it. If you DON'T
have such proof, then please stop making this claim.

[phleshdef]

94. If you haven't read extensively on it, you really have no business commenting on it.

But since you are obviously too lazy to even attempt to figure out what I'm talking about on your own...

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-pn-yemen-ap-leak-probe-20130516,0,7043431.story

[99th_Monkey]

96. I appreciate the information, but not your unnecessarily snarky attitude

Last edited Fri May 17, 2013, 10:16 PM - Edit history (1)

Believe it or not, I have a life besides being on DU and researching
on the web about current issues that are crucial to keep current on.

I don't find it necessary to be rude to someone when I share information
with them, especially when they ASK for it from a place of humility and
genuine curiosity -- which is exactly what I did with you.

The reason I'm at DU is to both share what I am most "up on" with
others; and also to learn from others what information others have
gleaned from the entire Universe of e-information, hopefully information
that is both credible and relevant. Collaboratively, we are all stronger.

I'm trying here to not lower myself to reciprocate in kind, with yet
more snarkiness. I hope I have at least succeeded in some small way
to do this.

[John2]

91. I think that I

see clearly through all this smoke and mirrors. The very same groups that you defend supported this Policy when it was under Bush. A Democratic Administration finally pushed back on the Press and they cry foul. These groups on the Rights do not care about the rights of groups on the Left, yet they cry loudest when they think their rights are being violated in the name of National Security and people rush to defend them. I don't think people who placed Obama in power should take the Right's crying serious. There needs to be more investigations by the Justice Department on the Rightwingers and a Media acting as the Press, but people like me see them as no more than a propaganda machine for the Republican Establishment. One question sums this up. You answer that question and maybe people like me can take you serious. Where was the Press during the lead up to the War on Iraq?

[leveymg]

3. Double-down on leaks. A Presidential tradition.

This rarely ends well.

[pmorlan1]

6. In the Bubble

I just posted this excerpt from today's Greenwald column in another thread but it's also appropriate for this one. We're becoming just like the Republicans under Bush.

Second, we yet again see one of the most significant aspects of the Obama legacy: the way in which it has transformed and degraded so many progressive precincts. Almost nobody is defending the DOJ's breathtaking targeting of AP, and with good reason: as the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press made clear yesterday, it's unprecedented:

"In the thirty years since the Department issued guidelines governing its subpoena practice as it relates to phone records from journalists, none of us can remember an instance where such an overreaching dragnet for news gathering materials was deployed by the Department, particularly without notice to the affected reporters or an opportunity to seek judicial review."

But there are a few people excusing or outright defending the DOJ here: namely, some progressive blogs and media outlets. They are about the only ones willing to defend this sweeping attempt to get the phone records of AP journalists.

[link:http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/15/obama-civil-liberties-sea-change|

[OnyxCollie]

10. "We're becoming just like the Republicans under Bush."

Who is this "we're" you are referring to?

Do not include me in the Blue Link Brigade that has been frantically doing damage control.

[pmorlan1]

17. My apologies

I certainly didn't mean to offend anyone by using the term "we're". It was in reference to Progressives in general. I'm not going around doing damage control either hence the reason for the link. I've been amazed and saddened watching Democrats defend the DOJ for what they did to AP.

[OnyxCollie]

23. Most people do not view things through an ideological lens.

Simply because they aren't aware of/don't care about the constraints of what it means to be "progressive." Hence, they are often contradictory in their beliefs.

They're similar to vegetarians who like to eat chicken.

[pmorlan1]

24. LOL

Great comparison. lol

[tavalon]

13. I would find myself a laughing stock to myself if I were to defend the DOJ

on this. It's indefensible.

[pmorlan1]

21. I agree

You are correct. It is indefensible but we still have people here who are trying.

[leveymg]

14. Obama reminds me a lot of Wilson. Another "progressive" who expanded state power and secrecy

to pursue a war he wasn't really crazy about getting into. He, too, institutionalized a lot of things that curtailed civil liberties: the FBI and other federal policing, the 1917 Espionage Act, border controls and passports, Red Squads and Palmer Raids, Prohibition, to name a few.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

41. He's a BAD, BAD man, that Obama! Let's impeach him!!

[leveymg]

63. To many, comparison to Woodrow Wilson is not an insult

In fact, in some ways, Wilson was an exceptionally intelligent and far-sighted leader, who oversaw many important administrative advances, among other good things:

Child Labor Laws
Eight hour day
Women's Suffrage
Graduated income tax
The Federal Reserve Act
Federal Farm Loan Act of 1916
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Federal Trade Commission Act.
Clayton Antitrust Act
League of Nations (a good idea)
Numerous other governmental reforms.

Altogether, an impressive list of accomplishments. But, on the other hand . . . (see post above)

I feel ambivalent about Obama for much the same sort of reason.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

64. I agree. No president is perfect. Not even FDR and not LBJ. All presidents do things that

leave us scratching heads. Obama is not perfect. I don't agree with everything's he done. But I also agree that he's this charlatan or conman just waiting in the wings to strip us of our constitutional rights.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

40. Greenwald is not credible.

[Berlum]

15. Which one of the Republican chickenhawks leaked and compromised America's safety?

Why do Republican Chickenhawks undermine America's security and attempt to blame the President? Pretty damn unpatriotic.

[wordpix]

73. well I do recall Chaniee, KarlRove, Libby leaked Valerie Plame's CIA connection & only lowly Scooter

got a slap on the wrist

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

18. For those of you who keep saying that he's a pushover and won't stand up, this article does no

justice. You need to SEE the entire press conference. The president was forceful; he was even angry and seemed very agitated. Before you complain, watch the entire presser.

Thank you!

[tavalon]

25. I'm sorry, but his level of agitation doesn't change the fact that he just tore up

the First Amendment. If this is all just to make him look strong, that makes it no more right than any reason he might have for overstepping his bounds.

Our founding fathers, for having no idea what this fledgling country would look like 200 plus years later, were amazingly prescient in how to prevent one part of the government from upending the other two parts.

Cheney wanted a Unitary Executive. Obama hasn't rolled any of that back and frankly, just took one more giant step toward it. And what's good for the goose is good for the gander. How would you feel if Bush had done this?

Remember TIA, Total Information Awareness? It may have fallen down the rabbit hole but it's a kissing cousin to what happened here.

[cstanleytech]

30. No, sorry but you are mistaken tavalon.

Investigating who leaked classified material appears to be constitutional.
What they cant do is order the paper shut down or order the reporters arrested for writing and printing a story neither of which has happened has it?

[tavalon]

38. I'm not being mean here, but I'm unsure how that parses

Do you have a link that I could go study? One that explains which part of the constitution allows for this. Is it a signing statement, because I find those to be unconstitutional as well?

Really, I'm not batting at you, here. I really want to dig into this, but my pocket constitution (which I just read cover to cover for the umpteenth time) isn't showing me this. If it really is constitutional, I'm angry but relieved. Help me be that.

[cstanleytech]

45. Well try thinking of it this way.

Was or was not the wiretap used to prevent the AP from publishing the story? Clearly the answer is no because the story was published so the government did nothing to infringe on the freedom of the press which would have been the case if say they had ordered the AP shut down.

[tavalon]

46. How about Judith Miller?

She refused to testify about Scooter Libby and went to jail for 85 days. However, her phone records were not subpenaed. I'm also really unsure, given what we recently found out about the cell phone networks, that "records" were all that were retrieved. And no, I have no evidence for that just a niggling little concern.

[cstanleytech]

76. She didnt go to jail for publishing the story though but rather for contempt of court.

[dreamnightwind]

65. Looking at who their sources were

Isn't that's an infringement of freedom of the press?

How can future whistleblowers, wanting to reveal misdeeds by their government, feel safe in talking to the press, when the justice department will just go through the reporter's phone records to see who they were talking to?

[cstanleytech]

74. No, it currently isnt infringment.

And if you want to discuss whistleblower laws and the government there is already a method set in place thats perfectly legal for someone to contact the inspector generals office and or a member of congress to report something that they believe is a crime but is classified.

[dreamnightwind]

79. Nothing to see here, eh?

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/politics/media-coalition-letter-of-protest-to-attorney-general-eric-holder/148/

Attorney General approval:
Section 50.10(e) requires the “express authorization of theAttorney General” before any subpoena to the news media may issue. This requirementserves as a final backstop to prevent abuses by making sure accountability for theseactions is placed at the very top of the agency. It was anticipated that the fact that mediasubpoenas must go to the highest official of the Justice Department would ensure thatgovernment lawyers would take every precaution before asking for approval and that theAttorney General would serve as a check on abusive practices that would undermine thesensitive relationship between journalists and their sources, and between the press and thegovernment. But the system failed here – either because your approval was not sought,or because it was given when it should not have been.

[cstanleytech]

80. Unless you mean that opinion piece you posted a link to

the answer is still "No, nothing yet." but when there is actual infringement like a newspaper being shutdown or a reporter being arrested to stop a story from being published let us know please.

[treestar]

56. "tore up the First Amendment"

Exaggeration. If you knew anything of its history and case law, you'd find it's been torn up long ago, then.

[tavalon]

58. I actually know a bit about both, and you're right

While this is the most heinous abuse I can think of, it is one of many. But really, from a Constitutional Scholar - that sucks.

[treestar]

71. How can this possibly be the most heinous abuse?

And wouldn't a Constitutional Scholar know more on the issue? Maybe he knows it's not an abuse - or at least sees the issue, which his haters fear to discover.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

88. WRONG!! The First Amendment has limitations. The president is right.

[pmorlan1]

26. Forceful and Angry?

I'd be happy if he was forceful and angry AT the Justice Dept. for what they did rather than forceful and angry defending them.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

36. What did the Justice Department do exactly? He needs to defend them. They did nothing wrong.

You need to read up on this story because it's clear that your personal feelings are getting in the way of the facts.

[cosmicone]

29. Good for Obama

I have no problem with a search of phone records to find a the source of a leak when it is done under the existing laws and with CALEA and FISA warrants.

[broadcaster75201]

32. Pity he doesn't feel the same about War Criminals and certain Bankers. nt

nt

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

37. According to you...

[idwiyo]

86. Remind me who was it that explicitly stated the will be no prosecution of anyone involved in torture

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/31/obama-justice-department-immunity-bush-cia-torturer

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2012-09-10/torture-obama-broken-promise/57735442/1

[Kolesar]

44. whatever that means...eom

[marshall]

50. Why apologize for something he didn't know anything about

He found out about it just like the rest of us--on the nightly news.

[toby jo]

62. This frightens some folks, here. But look at what a govt does. It provides structure to enable

people to function. When the structure is compromised, the function goes with it. Don't confuse the two.

People have a tendency to get reactionary when any type of force is used against what they hold dear. But sometimes the biggest rebel move is to back up an action in seeming contradictory terms to your viewpoint. I call it thinking things through and I call it class. Ya gotta bite the bullet sometimes.

Seen any of that in the right wing, lately?

[freshwest]

87. Thanks for the reflection of the purpose, not the spin.

[diabeticman]

77. I"m sorry if you view this as being an Obama hater BUT this seriously makes me worry

This is messing with a part of the 1st Amendment that could make true journalists doing there jobs in the future impossible or make true journalism a "dangerous" activity.

[Ash_F]

81. "while still accommodating for the need for information"

Doesn't sound like the government has done much to explain the murky goings on in Yemen and other places. How hard are they trying?

[Fire Walk With Me]

89. Also no apologies for NDAA, NDRP, HR347, drones, FISA, Patriot Act extension, Bush Tax Cut

extension, continued bailout of wall street and banksters, no apology for 7400+ beaten and arrested Occupy Wall Street activists, zero punished banksters, austerity installed under the psuedonym "sequester", protection of wall streeters and the continuing illegal foreclosure engine, unprecedented crackdown on righteous whistle-blowers, record deportations of "illegals", partial recinding of the STOCK act, installs Penny Pritzker to his cabinet, a Monsanto Exec to the FDA...

[woo me with science]

90. No apologies for any of it.

Chilling Legal Memo From Obama DOJ Justifies Assassination of US Citizens
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101654954

Obama seeks longer PATRIOT Act extension than Republicans (December 2013)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x380450

When it comes to civil liberties, apparently Democrats are just as bad as Republicans.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022101960

NSA's Massive New Spy Center to Track Your Emails, Internet Activity, and Phone Calls
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101620852

Obama Quietly Signs Abusive Spy Bill He Once Vowed to Eliminate
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022104861

Obama repeals Magna Carta, asserting powers our forefathers denied to Kings
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101655620

Obama's Memo on Killing Americans Twists 'Imminent Threat' Like Bush
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101654919

Obama no better than Bush when it comes to security vs. civil liberties.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022355307

Obama Admin Seeks Permission TO LIE In Response To FOI Requests - Even To The COURTS
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2185303

NDAA on trial: Obama Administration fights ban on indefinite detention of Americans
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101748688

Obama administration complicit with private prison industry: President Obama's IncarcerNation
http://www.nationofchange.org/president-obama-s-incarcernation-1335274655

Obama, Democrats Push to Make Bush Spying Laws Permanent
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022084702

NDAA, signed by Obama, is a direct attack against legitimate protest and dissent
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022064803

NSA Whistleblower: All Americans under constant surveillance, all info. stored, no matter the post
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002193487; http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021935289

Bipartisan Congress Disgracefully Approves the FISA Warrantless Spying Bill for Five More Years
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022087323

While Public & Media Focused on 2nd Amendment, 5th Amendment Quietly Dismantled
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022390581

How the Obama administration justifies extrajudicial killing of Americans,
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022318187

Judge Says Under Law Executive Branch Can Commit Acts That Sure Do Seem Unconstitutional
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022122464

Obama Justice Dept. says wiretap lawsuit should not proceed
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014337039

NDAA Lawsuit- Hedges v. Obama, The Last Thin Line of Defense
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022357078

Federal authorities step up efforts to license surveillance drones for law enforcement
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022383596

Big Banks and FBI worked together vs Occupy
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022095056]

FBI Investigated 'Occupy' As Possible 'Domestic Terrorism' Threat, Internal Documents Show
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022061578

FBI Documents Reveal Secret Nationwide Occupy Monitoring (Updated the OP)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022057064

Public Buses Across Country Quietly Adding Microphones to Record Passenger Conversations
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021965291

Street artist behind satirical NYPD 'Drone' posters arrested
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021920967

The Obama DOJ urged the Supreme Court's endorsement of strip searches.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002521527

Obama Administration Fights to Allow Warrantless GPS Tracking
http://sync.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1074474

Anonymous to FBI: hey, dudes, maybe you could take a break from...investigating activists....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022145621

Half a billion dollars for drones to spy on Americans
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021876414

From Bradley Manning to Aaron Swartz -- The Government's Inhumane Persecution of Brave Truth Tellers
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022276941

The sight of Army helicopters and the sound of gunfire...on Houston's south side
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022276742

Kiriakou and Stuxnet: the danger of the still-escalating Obama whistleblower war
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022275570

Can the DEA Hide a Surveillance Camera on Your Property?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022237059

Social Media and the Stasi
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021888029

Homeland Security Wants to More Than Double Its Predator Drone Fleet Inside the US, Despite Safety/Privacy Invasions
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014312823

CIA Behind Bizarre Censorship Incident At Alleged 9/11 Plotters’ Gitmo Trial
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022280285

“I Am Wearing My Conviction As A Badge Of Honor.”
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022275128

Meet the Contractors Turning America's Police Into a Paramilitary Force
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12525281

How Secrecy Corrodes Democracy
http://election.democraticunderground.com/101655009

Obama Quietly Issues Ruling Saying It's Legal For The FBI To Break The Law
http://election.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7545687

US Pulls Plug on Iran Cable News (Press TV)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014394770

DHS Watchdog OKs 'Suspicionless' Seizure of Electronic Devices Along Border
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022339091

[davidpdx]

99. As I pointed out in another thread

There are a good number of people on DU who have decided to jump to conclusions from the very beginning screaming about the 1st Amendment and freedom of the press.

It's all about conspiracy theories and Obama being a bad president. They won't accept the fact that no conversations were recorded and that it was about finding the person who leaked information. When the investigations are over and it is proven Obama and his administration did nothing illegal, don't hold your breathe for these same people to apologize. It's not in them.