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
In reply to the discussion: The DOJ had Subpoenas to monitor the AP [View all]Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)18. The Attorney General is the entity that grants them
There is no judicial review in such a case.
From the article you linked:
We take seriously our obligations to follow all applicable laws, federal regulations, and Department of Justice policies when issuing subpoenas for phone records of media organizations, said a statement from Bill Miller, spokesman for the office. Those regulations require us to make every reasonable effort to obtain information through alternative means before even considering a subpoena for the phone records of a member of the media.
...
Justice Department guidelines require that subpoenas of records from news organizations must be approved personally by the attorney general. Holders office did not reply to repeated requests for comment.
...
Justice Department guidelines require that subpoenas of records from news organizations must be approved personally by the attorney general. Holders office did not reply to repeated requests for comment.
I know I'm an old fart, but think of what such a precedent could allow a Nixon to do. Get two months of communications records from both personal and office phones for reporters who didn't even work on the story?
Because AP was not informed of the subpoena, it could not hire a lawyer to ask for judicial review. I literally cannot comprehend why "progressives" would support such a thing.
During the Bush administration, phone companies were agitating because they were getting demands for these records without any subpoenas at all. But a secret subpoena protects only the phone companies.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
52 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
If we don't like the laws granting expansive powers to the Executive branch, then tell
Pryderi
May 2013
#5
A great opportunity that will be missed because, as usual, we focus on the wrong things
apples and oranges
May 2013
#33
No actual content or wiretap. Just paper records of which numbers called which numbers.
JaneyVee
May 2013
#52
"It’s an astonishing assault on core values of our society.” From the link.
Tierra_y_Libertad
May 2013
#6
Yes. I do. And I would recommend President Obama propose legislation be passed to address it.
Pryderi
May 2013
#19
It's worth noting that the press is only concerned about because it affects them directly.
Skidmore
May 2013
#23
But it was 'secret' inasmuch as the DOJ does not immediately check in with AP about its activities.
randome
May 2013
#12
"wherever possible" we're talking about a story that endangered CIA operatives lives and National
Pryderi
May 2013
#31
That has to do with wiretapping and physical evidence. I don't see how FISA applies here.
randome
May 2013
#42
Who would want to live in a society where the government cannot have free access to sources
Douglas Carpenter
May 2013
#36