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: I Think I'll Side With The ACLU On This... [View all]ProSense
(116,464 posts)6. Well,
"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.
DOJ's AP Phone Logs Grab Highlights Renewed Need for Shield Law
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 cant 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 its 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 stakeholdersincluding 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 groupscame 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 administrationthe "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
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 cant 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 its 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 stakeholdersincluding 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 groupscame 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 administrationthe "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.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
79 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
I think I'll side with protecting American lives and not giving them up for sake of scoop
uponit7771
May 2013
#2
"Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." - George W. Bush, 2001
Fire Walk With Me
May 2013
#70
The ACLU opposes a national registry. Let's assume that the NRA does as well. So what?
AnotherMcIntosh
May 2013
#47
The thing that annoys me is that the DOJ's able to do this with just a subpoena.
backscatter712
May 2013
#5
But they were to tell so AP what they were doing so AP could take it before a judge.
Lady Freedom Returns
May 2013
#38
"The subpoena was issued by a grand jury"? Says who? Someone else speculated about this, but
AnotherMcIntosh
May 2013
#48
Actually yes. Most folks here would be VERY angry over sweeping surveillence of reporters
Matariki
May 2013
#15
I though that many Dems your wrong about targeting reporters in regards to the Plame case...
Luminous Animal
May 2013
#30
Same here. And I'll list off the good stuff that Obama has accomplished in his defense.
Matariki
May 2013
#33
I'm waiting a little longer to pass judgement. We may learn later that someone was killed or placed
kelliekat44
May 2013
#24
BTW - if you started from the premise that journalists have objective standards
demwing
May 2013
#65
I'll side with the outed agent who saved hundreds of lives on that Detroit Airplane.
DevonRex
May 2013
#46
there is a small bunch here who don't believe that there are any real terrorists
OKNancy
May 2013
#52
Ya Know... You Are Under Attack In Oklahoma... Just By Conservative Republicans...
WillyT
May 2013
#69
I don't have a problem with the AP "scandal" but I also realize that the ship has sailed
underpants
May 2013
#59
The government needs to quit taking people's phone records without a warrant right away. nt
limpyhobbler
May 2013
#68