Government Secretly Obtained AP's Phone Records

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Let's see Benghazi is a drummed up controversy, the dumb Repubs can't even find Libya on the map. The IRS scandal again nothing much, just a bunch of middle aged white men acting like drama queens over two low level IRS employees who were probably just doing their jobs anyway (patterns -- looking for patterns).

The government secretly obtained the AP's phone records? Red alert. All hands on deck. Sound the alarms! We have a serious issue here!

Yes, that's about it. Even if you think Benghazi and the IRS are important stories, I don't know why you wouldn't get excited about the Government spying on news agencies. More importantly, the AP story is part of a bigger story of government spying on Americans. The government believes it can access your email without a warrant. All kinds of warrantless wiretapping has gone on.

Just from a strategic viewpoint, if you actually want to create change, why not choose and issue on which the left and right can agree? On the other hand, if you just want to scream and yell and at the end of the day maintain the status quo, continue as you have been.

His point is that NOW you recognize the crookedness of this administation? We are years ahead of y'all in this regard so this, while a big deal, comes as no surprise to conservatives

I have been complaining about Obama's civil liberties record for years. While you guys were worried about birth certificates and college transcripts, I was complaining about extra-judicial assassinations of American citizens. Sadly, those years during which you think you got a head start on me were actually spent by you wondering off in the wrong direction.

[Anonymous]

Obama is anti American . Who's going to win? America or Obama ?

[takoma]

To any posters who think there is some inconsistency in the fact that Jeff often defends Obama yet sometimes criticizes him, please note that he is consistent, and he is not alone.

The difference is that there are some who see things as always partisan, and some who look at individual issues. The former will attack or defend Obama because he is a Dem (supposedly the most liberal ever), the latter will defend him against silly attacks made for the sake of attack and criticize him when he does things we disagree with.

If we point out that he is usually not the first to do these things, that is neither to exonerate him nor to shift the criticism to others, but just to note that the problem may be bigger than one president, and may be a systemic problem with the presidency. In any case, Obama is culpable for the wrongful acts, even if he is not the first.

[Anonymous]

I have been complaining about Obama's civil liberties record for years. While you guys were worried about birth certificates and college transcripts, I was complaining about extra-judicial assassinations of American citizens. Sadly, those years during which you think you got a head start on me were actually spent by you wondering off in the wrong direction.

If all Conservatives are the same, does that mean that all Liberals and Libertarians are the same, too? Your sweeping brush strokes never fail to astound me...of course, then there are the more subtle jabs painting Conservatives as racist bigots, while Liberals are merely blind supporters of the President.

[Anonymous]

It is funny watching Joe in the Morning. After years and years of republicans screaming about leaks, national security, and the press, now its bad to find and stop the leaks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, this is going to be Big. So will the IRS story.

Gosh this all seems so new to you.

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

and your point is? ..............

My point is the reason that the government so easily spies on the public is because we turned them loose to do it after 9/11. I was absolutely opposed to the PATRIOT Act and the subsequent legislation. I was opposed to the NSA warrantless wiretapping. I am opposed to FISA.

Do you know what I heard when these things were being put into place? Honest Americans don't have anything to fear. The government is not going to spy on us and if they do we have nothing to hide. We were attacked and we have to do something about it. Republicans said it and Dems didn't say as much but they sure as hell voted for it. That left people like me in the tiny, tiny minority.

Now (since '08) we have a Dem President and the far right has wakened to the possibility that the government might be using its power against them. Suddenly we have senators worried about those spy drones and what information government is collecting about them and putting in the databases they built to fight the war on terror. And now the press realizes that it has come to bite them as well, although to be fair to them at least the press covered all of these transgressions.

A week ago there was a thread wanting to know where the leak investigation went. Republicans have been hammering about leaks, Obama is pissed about the leaks. All reasonable positions. Leaks involving the war on terror. So this investigation was conducted - legally - using the same machinery that is used to chase after the bad guys. Because in the logic of the war on terror, chasing down these leaks = chasing down the bad guys, and following the trail from the people receiving the leaks just makes sense.

So maybe the next time we decide to play fast and loose with civil liberties (assassinating citizens without trial for example) we might want to realize that when we allow government to do these things in the name of security, we allow it to develop the technologies and the mindset to do it to honest Americans as well.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
My point is the reason that the government so easily spies on the public is because we turned them loose to do it after 9/11. I was absolutely opposed to the PATRIOT Act and the subsequent legislation. I was opposed to the NSA warrantless wiretapping. I am opposed to FISA.

Do you know what I heard when these things were being put into place? Honest Americans don't have anything to fear. The government is not going to spy on us and if they do we have nothing to hide. We were attacked and we have to do something about it. Republicans said it and Dems didn't say as much but they sure as hell voted for it. That left people like me in the tiny, tiny minority.

Now (since '08) we have a Dem President and the far right has wakened to the possibility that the government might be using its power against them. Suddenly we have senators worried about those spy drones and what information government is collecting about them and putting in the databases they built to fight the war on terror. And now the press realizes that it has come to bite them as well, although to be fair to them at least the press covered all of these transgressions.

A week ago there was a thread wanting to know where the leak investigation went. Republicans have been hammering about leaks, Obama is pissed about the leaks. All reasonable positions. Leaks involving the war on terror. So this investigation was conducted - legally - using the same machinery that is used to chase after the bad guys. Because in the logic of the war on terror, chasing down these leaks = chasing down the bad guys, and following the trail from the people receiving the leaks just makes sense.

So maybe the next time we decide to play fast and loose with civil liberties (assassinating citizens without trial for example) we might want to realize that when we allow government to do these things in the name of security, we allow it to develop the technologies and the mindset to do it to honest Americans as well.

Very well said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is funny watching Joe in the Morning. After years and years of republicans screaming about leaks, national security, and the press, now its bad to find and stop the leaks.

This.

We're going to need to know more about this revelation before pulling the "civil liberties" alarm. From a TPM reader:

The AP story on the Justice Department “secretly” obtaining phone records from AP strikes me as an unprofessional effort by the AP to make the Department look bad. If you read the story your learn that Justice is in fact investigating a leak to the AP. The merits of such am investigation may be debated but for the AP to write this article in this fashion would be like a politician under investigation issuing a press release about the evil investigation against him. Everyone would understand it for what it is.
More important it is clear to anyone who understands what happens in this type of investigation that the Justice Department subpoenaed phone records. Those records came from the phone company not from AP. They relate to dates and times of phone calls not content. Under the law such a subpoena is perfectly proper and under the law Justice and the phone company must notify the party (in this case AP) that records were subpoenaed.

I think AP protests just a bit too much and seeks to smear Justice (knowing full well that many Republicans will jump on this quickly).

(http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/05/a_conflict_of_interest.php)

I think the DOJ would've been within bounds if it had subpoenaed phone records to find out who in the government with a high-level secret clearance is leaking counter-terrorism information to the AP. Which is what this appears to be about.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is funny watching Joe in the Morning. After years and years of republicans screaming about leaks, national security, and the press, now its bad to find and stop the leaks.

This.

We're going to need to know more about this revelation before pulling the "civil liberties" alarm. From a TPM reader:

The AP story on the Justice Department “secretly” obtaining phone records from AP strikes me as an unprofessional effort by the AP to make the Department look bad. If you read the story your learn that Justice is in fact investigating a leak to the AP. The merits of such am investigation may be debated but for the AP to write this article in this fashion would be like a politician under investigation issuing a press release about the evil investigation against him. Everyone would understand it for what it is.
More important it is clear to anyone who understands what happens in this type of investigation that the Justice Department subpoenaed phone records. Those records came from the phone company not from AP. They relate to dates and times of phone calls not content. Under the law such a subpoena is perfectly proper and under the law Justice and the phone company must notify the party (in this case AP) that records were subpoenaed.

I think AP protests just a bit too much and seeks to smear Justice (knowing full well that many Republicans will jump on this quickly).

(http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/05/a_conflict_of_interest.php)

I think the DOJ would've been within bounds if it had subpoenaed phone records to find out who in the government with a high-level secret clearance is leaking counter-terrorism information to the AP. Which is what this appears to be about.

I disagree. What is the difference between "a leaker" and "a whistleblower"? The press is supposed to be a watchdog over government. Whistleblowers are one of the primary means that the Press gets information about government wrong-doing. If the Government obtains the media's phone records because of a leak tied to security, then what will stop it from doing the same in a simple whistleblower case? The government can claim that any lead has national security implications.

What you are doing is suggesting a willingness to sacrifice liberty for security. As Ben Franklin said, those who do that deserve neither.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is funny watching Joe in the Morning. After years and years of republicans screaming about leaks, national security, and the press, now its bad to find and stop the leaks.

This.

We're going to need to know more about this revelation before pulling the "civil liberties" alarm. From a TPM reader:

The AP story on the Justice Department “secretly” obtaining phone records from AP strikes me as an unprofessional effort by the AP to make the Department look bad. If you read the story your learn that Justice is in fact investigating a leak to the AP. The merits of such am investigation may be debated but for the AP to write this article in this fashion would be like a politician under investigation issuing a press release about the evil investigation against him. Everyone would understand it for what it is.
More important it is clear to anyone who understands what happens in this type of investigation that the Justice Department subpoenaed phone records. Those records came from the phone company not from AP. They relate to dates and times of phone calls not content. Under the law such a subpoena is perfectly proper and under the law Justice and the phone company must notify the party (in this case AP) that records were subpoenaed.

I think AP protests just a bit too much and seeks to smear Justice (knowing full well that many Republicans will jump on this quickly).

(http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/05/a_conflict_of_interest.php)

I think the DOJ would've been within bounds if it had subpoenaed phone records to find out who in the government with a high-level secret clearance is leaking counter-terrorism information to the AP. Which is what this appears to be about.

I disagree. What is the difference between "a leaker" and "a whistleblower"? The press is supposed to be a watchdog over government. Whistleblowers are one of the primary means that the Press gets information about government wrong-doing. If the Government obtains the media's phone records because of a leak tied to security, then what will stop it from doing the same in a simple whistleblower case? The government can claim that any lead has national security implications.

What you are doing is suggesting a willingness to sacrifice liberty for security. As Ben Franklin said, those who do that deserve neither.

What you're saying is that the government cannot pursue cases where people violate their secret clearance, even in cases where national security has been put at risk. I respectfully disagree. You're making a "slippery slope" argument, in any case. Not every leaker is a whistleblower. If I'm privy to information & techniques the CIA uses to track down people who are actively trying to blow up commercial airliners, and I share that information with the AP so they can write a story about anti-terrorism, that's not being a "whistleblower". That's being a criminal. Those people should be investigated, they should lose their clearances, and they should be prosecuted. To call them "whistleblowers" is to insult every actual whistleblower.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is funny watching Joe in the Morning. After years and years of republicans screaming about leaks, national security, and the press, now its bad to find and stop the leaks.

This.

We're going to need to know more about this revelation before pulling the "civil liberties" alarm. From a TPM reader:

The AP story on the Justice Department “secretly” obtaining phone records from AP strikes me as an unprofessional effort by the AP to make the Department look bad. If you read the story your learn that Justice is in fact investigating a leak to the AP. The merits of such am investigation may be debated but for the AP to write this article in this fashion would be like a politician under investigation issuing a press release about the evil investigation against him. Everyone would understand it for what it is.
More important it is clear to anyone who understands what happens in this type of investigation that the Justice Department subpoenaed phone records. Those records came from the phone company not from AP. They relate to dates and times of phone calls not content. Under the law such a subpoena is perfectly proper and under the law Justice and the phone company must notify the party (in this case AP) that records were subpoenaed.

I think AP protests just a bit too much and seeks to smear Justice (knowing full well that many Republicans will jump on this quickly).

(http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/05/a_conflict_of_interest.php)

I think the DOJ would've been within bounds if it had subpoenaed phone records to find out who in the government with a high-level secret clearance is leaking counter-terrorism information to the AP. Which is what this appears to be about.

I disagree. What is the difference between "a leaker" and "a whistleblower"? The press is supposed to be a watchdog over government. Whistleblowers are one of the primary means that the Press gets information about government wrong-doing. If the Government obtains the media's phone records because of a leak tied to security, then what will stop it from doing the same in a simple whistleblower case? The government can claim that any lead has national security implications.

What you are doing is suggesting a willingness to sacrifice liberty for security. As Ben Franklin said, those who do that deserve neither.

What you're saying is that the government cannot pursue cases where people violate their secret clearance, even in cases where national security has been put at risk. I respectfully disagree. You're making a "slippery slope" argument, in any case. Not every leaker is a whistleblower. If I'm privy to information & techniques the CIA uses to track down people who are actively trying to blow up commercial airliners, and I share that information with the AP so they can write a story about anti-terrorism, that's not being a "whistleblower". That's being a criminal. Those people should be investigated, they should lose their clearances, and they should be prosecuted. To call them "whistleblowers" is to insult every actual whistleblower.

At no time did I say that the government should not investigate leaks. Also, at no time did I say that whoever leaked the information about Yemen was a whistleblower. If you want to debate strawmen, please do it elsewhere. The government can investigate leaks, but it should not secretly obtain phone records from the media when it does so. That may hinder the investigation, but that's tough. Freedom of the press is more important.

What differentiates a leader from a whistleblower? It's purely a judgement call. In some cases, there might be little disagreement about the judgement, but in other cases there would me. The government can describe anything as a national security issue.

Also, it's important to remember that the government is not opposed to leaking national security secrets, it's only opposed when that information makes them look bad or embarrasses an ally (as is the case here). The government leaks secrets that make it look good all the time. That never gets investigated.

[Anonymous]

The government leaks secrets that make it look good all the time. That never gets investigated.

Joe Biden leaking Seal Team 6. Looks benign but has made life more difficult for the Seals. I'm not sure I agree that it caused deaths in Afghanistan, but he should not have leaked it.

[Anonymous]

Pretty scary. It really makes you wonder about our government.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The government leaks secrets that make it look good all the time. That never gets investigated.

Joe Biden leaking Seal Team 6. Looks benign but has made life more difficult for the Seals. I'm not sure I agree that it caused deaths in Afghanistan, but he should not have leaked it.

There was a book and a movie. There is no point in blaming Joe Biden. Also, Biden did not name the team. This has been repeated so many times it is assumed to be true.

If there was anyone who actually put someone in danger, it was Fox News for leaking the name of the author of "No Easy Day". It actually puts a target on him for the rest of his life.

[Anonymous]

The government can investigate leaks, but it should not secretly obtain phone records from the media when it does so. That may hinder the investigation, but that's tough. Freedom of the press is more important.

We'll have to agree to disagree. If one party to the conversation is USG I think this can be entirely appropriate. Not saying that's the case here, since neither of us know the details yet.