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 Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
Mon May 13, 2013, 06:16 PM May 2013

Why The Department Of Justice Is Going After The Associated Press’ Records [View all]

Why The Department Of Justice Is Going After The Associated Press’ Records

By Hayes Brown

News broke on Monday that the Department of Justice secretly sought phone records of reporters at the Associated Press...Last year, the Associated Press reported that an Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) plot had been foiled, thanks to a timely intervention on the part of the United States. The plan, according to the AP’s March 2012 story, involved an upgrade of the “underwear bomb” used in the failed Christmas Day 2011 bomb plot that was meant to take down a passenger airplane in Detroit, MI.

Why that drew the attention of the Justice Department, however, is that the CIA was the one who foiled the plot, which the AP report made clear:

The FBI is examining the latest bomb to see whether it could have passed through airport security and brought down an airplane, officials said. They said the device did not contain metal, meaning it probably could have passed through an airport metal detector. But it was not clear whether new body scanners used in many airports would have detected it.

The would-be suicide bomber, based in Yemen, had not yet picked a target or bought a plane ticket when the CIA stepped in and seized the bomb, officials said. It’s not immediately clear what happened to the alleged bomber.

AP learned of the plot a week before publishing, but “agreed to White House and CIA requests not to publish it immediately” due to national security concerns. But, by reporting the CIA’s involvement in foiling the plot, they put AQAP on notice that the CIA had a window into their activities. The AP’s reporting also led to other stories involving an operative in place within AQAP, and details of the operations he was involved in. That operative, it was feared, would be exposed and targeted by AQAP as retribution for siding with the United States.

John Brennan, who is now the head of the CIA, said at his confirmation hearing that the release of information to AP was an “unauthorized and dangerous disclosure of classified information.” That the Department of Justice would be pursuing information on these leaks is also not new, given Attorney General Eric Holder’s appointment of federal prosecutors to look into the disclosures last year. What is surprising is the large amount of information the Justice Department seems to have acquired in its pursuit:

In all, the government seized those records for more than 20 separate telephone lines assigned to AP and its journalists in April and May of 2012. The exact number of journalists who used the phone lines during that period is unknown but more than 100 journalists work in the offices whose phone records were targeted on a wide array of stories about government and other matters.

- more -

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

Here's what I want to know: Was there a subpoena or a warrant involved?



47 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Should a warrant be needed to search something owned by a corporation? jberryhill May 2013 #1
Should a warrant be needed to tap press phone lines? Skip Intro May 2013 #2
Not according to Move To Amend jberryhill May 2013 #3
"freedom of the press" has to apply to a collection of people, not just an individual muriel_volestrangler May 2013 #12
One person can own and operate a press jberryhill May 2013 #13
Do you think "the press" was intended to be restricted to one person operations? muriel_volestrangler May 2013 #17
You can argue with Move To Amend on that one jberryhill May 2013 #18
I have no interest in 'Move To Amend' at all muriel_volestrangler May 2013 #21
I say "correct?" to avoid putting words into someone's mouth jberryhill May 2013 #24
Citizen's United is a topic for another thread muriel_volestrangler May 2013 #39
But you included making movies in your definition of "press" jberryhill May 2013 #45
That was an 'electioneering communication' muriel_volestrangler May 2013 #46
Are you suggesting that neither the 1st nor the 4th Amendments apply to AP? eom leveymg May 2013 #41
End Corporate Personhood! jberryhill May 2013 #44
This was not a tap, and ProSense May 2013 #4
Subpoena to telco reveals reporters phone records - who calls, who gets called. Called a "pen trap." leveymg May 2013 #42
The press is protected choie May 2013 #11
Okay, so.... jberryhill May 2013 #15
Should journalists be spied on in a Democracy? sabrina 1 May 2013 #23
Corporations are already legally treated as "US persons" for FISA purposes. eom leveymg May 2013 #40
Patriot Act says no stinkin' warrant is needed... Bandit May 2013 #5
Yes, I assumed "warrantless wiretapping" CJCRANE May 2013 #6
The Boston bombers call from wife is case in point.....an attorney on CNN said they will listen to Gin May 2013 #33
Oh I can't wait to see the hypocrisy of conservatives getting outraged about this. JaneyVee May 2013 #7
You Rebl May 2013 #22
If they had a subpoena or a warrant, this wouldn't be much of a story. winter is coming May 2013 #8
Yes it would. It'll be a bigger story if there were none, but geek tragedy May 2013 #9
Spying on mainstream media is still big news in the US leveymg May 2013 #43
Big Deal mick063 May 2013 #10
Good job, AP... Earth_First May 2013 #14
coming on the back of and mixed with the Benghazi story and the IRS story this is not good Douglas Carpenter May 2013 #16
Actually, ProSense May 2013 #20
You're dismissing the IRS story? Skip Intro May 2013 #25
Why ProSense May 2013 #26
Oh come on. Skip Intro May 2013 #27
Maybe ProSense May 2013 #28
If you think it isn't nothing, then what do you think it is? Skip Intro May 2013 #29
Oh ProSense May 2013 #30
So no effort to hamper or stifle political speech? Skip Intro May 2013 #31
No, ProSense May 2013 #32
Just to be clear: Skip Intro May 2013 #34
Maybe this will be ProSense May 2013 #35
Now you're wasting my time. Skip Intro May 2013 #36
On this point ProSense May 2013 #37
Evasive "answer" with mandatory link to something. Skip Intro May 2013 #38
You're saying that non-profit groups should be able to use tax deductible funds for political speech CreekDog May 2013 #47
Found this comment on ThinkProgress.. FWIW Cha May 2013 #19
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Why The Department Of Jus...