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: CONFIRMED: Fox News Hack James Rosen Is A Political Operative, Not A Journalist [View all]
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)33. There is no valid reasonable suspicion here.
Last edited Sat May 25, 2013, 12:01 AM - Edit history (1)
The government cited Rosen's solicitation of information from and communication with sources, which are normal, even defining, activities for any investigative journalist. There is no evidence, nor even any suggestion, of criminal activity here, yet the government sought to surveil Rosen based on written accustions that he was somehow a co-conspirator in criminal activity.
That is what is so chilling here, and that is what the government's own affadavit admits. And that is why the administration is backtracking now and making public statements about "press shield" laws.
Based on their argument, ANY investigative journalist would have been fair game for government surveillance without any chance to dispute the warrant. It was unconscionable.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
139 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
= 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
CONFIRMED: Fox News Hack James Rosen Is A Political Operative, Not A Journalist [View all]
ProSense
May 2013
OP
Proceed ...the news came out tonight that FOX was informed of this investigation THREE YEARS AGO. nt
kelliekat44
May 2013
#125
How will the media spin this? Probably won't change anything since they hate the Obama admin,
kelliekat44
May 2013
#7
nonsense, all reporting is a political. Reporters should attempt to reveal government secrets.
limpyhobbler
May 2013
#85
Journalists don't need to be "neutral" or any such thing. It's OK for Fox "News" to hate Obama.
limpyhobbler
May 2013
#87
We are talking about government surveillance based on allegations of criminal conspiracy.
woo me with science
May 2013
#23
No, the government *used* accusations of criminal conspiracy in order to *obtain* the warrant,
woo me with science
May 2013
#29
Again, we are talking about government surveillance based on accusations of criminal conspiracy,
woo me with science
May 2013
#39
There is nothing criminal about a journalist's soliciting information. Or receiving it.
woo me with science
May 2013
#44
Exactly what part of the US Code you cited would apply in this case? The statute you are using
SlimJimmy
May 2013
#53
"He released information pertaining to the North Korean response to sanctions."
ProSense
May 2013
#55
What was provided to him had nothing to do with the statute you cited. That statute concerns the
SlimJimmy
May 2013
#59
Show me where this is illegal under the appropriate US Code. Obtaining classified information
SlimJimmy
May 2013
#60
You have really missed the mark here. And your cut and paste reply tells me all I need to know.
SlimJimmy
May 2013
#75
It is the necessary and usual step when accusing someone of a crime. The federal government
SlimJimmy
May 2013
#84
What is nonsense is *your* assertion that a search warrant is not issued against a targeted person
SlimJimmy
May 2013
#99
The warrant may be issued to a person or business, but the affidavit must show probable cause
SlimJimmy
May 2013
#107
Yes they did, In the affidavit they named him as a co-conspirator and wanted his records
SlimJimmy
May 2013
#111
Wow, the ignorance you are showing relating to the facts here is stunning. Is it really that hard
SlimJimmy
May 2013
#119
I was just as appalled when Nixon targeted the Pentagon Paper reporters. I remember
SlimJimmy
May 2013
#126
The government had no justification to make the accusation they did
woo me with science
May 2013
#45
Please pass that information on to Prosense. I'm getting tired of explaining it to her. (nt)
SlimJimmy
May 2013
#113
There was no evidence or even suggestion of criminal behavior here.
woo me with science
May 2013
#46
Actually it's not illegal for a reporter to obtain classified information, except in very well
SlimJimmy
May 2013
#50
As you can see above, the OP is embarrassingly and disturbingly serious,
woo me with science
May 2013
#31
I'm still waiting for Prosense to excerpt the part of the applicable US Code that
SlimJimmy
May 2013
#100
No, I'm waiting for you to show me something in writing that you contend here repeatedly.
SlimJimmy
May 2013
#108
In other words, you can't provide the simple bit of information I requested that would prove
SlimJimmy
May 2013
#112
Look, I've documented every contention I've made. It's all here in the thread. You, on the
SlimJimmy
May 2013
#117
All I've done is document facts. That you don't like that is not my problem.
SlimJimmy
May 2013
#120
I understand. I've not only made my points, but documented them. All anyone has to do is read
SlimJimmy
May 2013
#132
Sometimes we have to put up with the smoke bombs in our attempt to educate. I appreciate
SlimJimmy
May 2013
#137