Slashdot Mirror
Reporter Phone Records Being Used to Find Leaks
jackbird writes "Brian Ross, Chief Investigative Correspondent for ABC news says a confidential source informed him that reporter's phone records are being used by the administration to track down leaks. Apparently reporters for the New York Times, ABC News, and the Washington Post are being scrutinized. The fact that ABC News journalists are even seriously wondering about whether the warning is connected to the NSA's domestic surveillance activities indicates just how anxious many people in Washington have become."
"A senior federal law enforcement official tells ABC News the government is tracking the phone numbers we (Brian Ross and Richard Esposito) call in an effort to root out confidential sources."
That should make a chill go up your spine! So much for the 1st Amendment.
This has NOTHING to do with protecting undercover agents as someone put it. If it was, then why isn't Robert Novak behind bars! Why hasn't Robert Novak's phone records been confiscated!! He was the one that outed Valerie Plame-Wislon. Oh and the Scooter Libbey case clearly shows the Bush Whitehouse passed along her information so she can be exposed to the public. Thus why are you pretending that this is anything more than trying to prevent the people from finding out about illegal spying activities of the Bush Administration.
Nice job comrade!
The leakers are mostly pointing out *illegal acts* that are being carried out by our government. Don't we live in a democracy?
The sad fact is that the current adminiistration is often simply trying to hide their illegal/immoral acts by labeling them as "classified."
I would argue that these people who who say they are "defending" America -- have actually helped kill more Americans than the attacks on 9/11.
Think: disaster planning and relief, health care, and more generally: economic policies that affect any number of "quality of life" or even just "life" issues impacting a majority of Americans.
They have carried out many policies (in lieu of known, better alternatives) that had predictable results ahead of time; therefore, their negligence is willful and "deliberate," and not "accidental."
Who is the "we" that is constantly being pointed to as requiring freedom, security, and justice -- and who is actually getting it?
It's worse than even that, actually. What makes you think that people inside the government won't misuse their power and access to information for purely private purposes?
For example: If you run a business and one of your competitors has an inside track to the gatekeepers of this information, I'd say it's time to start worrying...
While I don't think anything you're suggesting has ever happened, we did find out from Al Qaeda records that they had never seriously considered using chemical & biological weapons in terrorist strikes until the American press detailed how easy they are to obtain and how devestating the effect would be.
Now, that wasn't classified information; but it does show, at least, that when the American media publishes information useful to terrorists, it doesn't go unnoticied.
"With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not necessarily a good idea...."
RFC 1925
It amazes me how many of the comments on the ABC News blog say, "the government should put leakers away for life!" and "treasonous journalists should be shot!"
Don't they realize that those are the attitudes that allowed Hitler and Stalin to operate? (And don't give me any lip about Goodwin's Law. This is serious.) I'm absolutely floored by folks who would like nothing better than to live in a police state coocoon when it's "their people in charge," but then scream bloody murder if "the wrong people" hold power. They just can't see that this attitude makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE. Give the government an inch and they will take a mile, always. There is ALWAYS someone out there who wants more power, and it is our duty to ensure they cannot take it, whether we agree with them ideologically or not.
If I give someone an order to rape some little girl and then I get that order classified they would be wrong to follow the order OR to obey the classification.Yes there are.
So? When the corruption goes to the top then there is nothing wrong with going to the public.People who have security clearances know that if they do go public, they will face the consequences.
Going public is always an option.
It is the final option.No one is saying that they shouldn't expect that.
What you're saying is that they should NEVER go public.
I'm saying that going public with an illegal order is the LAST resort and does NOT violate any oath.Again, you are wrong.
When they go public with information about an ILLEGAL operation / order, they have broken no oaths.
With this sort of political climate, the public has to rely on leaks from people inside to even know what's going on.
Forget that... the Congress has to rely on leaks to know what's going on! Only 4 of the 535 members were briefed on the domestic/international warrant-less wiretaps. Who knows how many were briefed on this new privacy invasion.
HIV Crosses Species Barrier... into Muppets
What if the consequences of their actions were to be shipped off to Gitmo? What if it were to be publicly discredited with misinformation? The administration has given reason enough for a whistleblower to be afraid. There is no need for them to become either a martyr or pariah.
The Press should be the ally of the People.
When the Government considers the Press to be the Enemy, that means that the Government considers an ally of the People to be the Enemy.
That's one step away from considering the People to be the Enemy of the Government.
You didn't hear the explination? As president, Bush CANNOT LEAK CLASSIFIED INFORMATION because as the chief executive, he has the authority to DECLASIFY anything he wants. So if he said go ahead & blow a CIA cover, that cover becomes declassified by default - nothing illegal here.
Nice try, bravo.
As I pointed out below, however, Fitzgerald tried to get the phone records of the reporter (AFTER the fact, not an attempt to monitor ongoing communications from the reporter, which is an even WORSE offense, imho) and the court denied his request, citing the constitutional privledges of the press.
So even in a case where the leaked classified information did in fact danger lives, it was decided by the court that the phone records of journalists were protected.
Again, good try.
I thought someone said there was going to be free beer!
This post makes a good point. Let me add to it.
Who elected the reporters and gave them this authority? No one? Are they a law unto themselves?
If you do this, looking at your phone calls is mild.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
Seriously, many government phones have stickers on them that say "this line subject to monitoring," or similar. Also, we have a rich culture of spy thriller movies where the protagonists go through extraordinary lenghts not to have their phone calls traced or monitored. Anyone contemplating leaking information to the press should be well-prepared to render these phone records useless in tracking them down.
Language students: Don't try to learn English here. This ain't it.
Please start dealing with reality, not fantasy.
You first.
Here's a fantasy: There was a substantive threat to the United States in Iraq.
Here's another: There was anybody in Iraq that had anything to do with your craters, either directly or indirectly.
Here's yet another: Iraq's WMD program was far enough advanced to represent a clear and present danger to the United States, either from Iraq itself or from nuclear-weapon-wielding terrorists.
Here's a new one: Iran's nuclear ambitions represent enough of a substantive threat to the United States to necessitate military action.
Apparently you haven't been paying attention.
The fact is that when Gonzales told us that the NSA only listens to international calls he didn't take an oath, and that he later rescinded or re-qualified much of his testimony, in particular making the point that although one particlar intelligence program involved listening to international calls, a certain gigantic multi-billion dollar signals-intelligence agency might actually be running more than one signals-gathering program. (Like, whoa, seriously?)
To attach the name "fact" to information obtained under such circumstances is, I think, very, very optimistic, in a sense.
The fact is that Bush has told us bald-faced lies about domestic spying activities, and at this point it would require a hearty steaming ladle-full of naivete to imagine that the general public now knows the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
The fact is that the Bush administration has aptly demonstrated that it simply cannot be trusted, and the sorry fact is that we can be certain of precious little beyond that.
The fact is, recognizing these facts does not constitute "fanaticism." I believe there's a saying down in Texas: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again."
Bash Bush +1
/. is now? Home of the moonbats?
/. ever came up with a political section, it only tilts one way. Then again, what else should we expect? Most of those doing the bashing are the same chickenshits that will never march, never write a Congressman, and never do anything but flame away on a message board. You know why? Because it takes no effort. Hell I bet the bulk can't name their Senators and only a few could name their Congressman without searching Google.
Bash Fox +1
I guess I found two of your points (automatic scoring)
Honestly, how is this comment of yours rated so highly? It provides us with nothing except the typical moonbat accusations. Is this what
Its apparent the only way to generate good karma on this thread is to join in the innuendo brigade. There is nothing being discussed anymore, its just pull out every coincidence, true or imagined, and go after Bush and Co.
There is so much other crap to jump on that this Adminstration is doing yet people recycle the same tired old innuendo in attempt to score cheap points. Its too bad
Uninformed and spouting nonsense does not help the discussion of the problem at hand. Doing some real research and presenting facts does. I would love to find other sources other than this "blog entry". That speaks of deniability and no need of accountability. ABC is not running this as a story but as a blog entry. I guess this is their "escape clause".
Wait a few days, lets see what the real story is. Sensational reporting is nothing new, its great bait for forum trolls and people who react out of emotion instead of intelligence.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Slashdot reader over-reaction meter is off scale.
1) No other news source has confirmed this (CNN/NBC/BBC etc).
2) Which ever Washington post reporter that submitted the story that we were listening to Osama's phone calls needs to be prosecuted.
3) The NSA is getting a copy of the connection numbers, not the conversations. Can you be prosecuted for mis-dialing an AQ member? Not. The phone companies have been storing this information since 1992.
4) This was all public record back in December. Don't slashdot users read anything besides blogs?
5) The IRS knows more about you.
6) I would guess that the NSA is also monitoring money transfers from overseas. My $600 (300UK) ATM withdrawal in the UK in stored somewhere.
7) Gore/Kerry would have done the same damn thing.
The President of the United States is elected as the Executive of the US. Like Every Other President, He is empowered to release whatever the hell classified information he wants.
That's a nifty special power the President and (recently) the VP have. Also, elected officials (meaning the pres, VP, and members of congress) don't have to get investigated for security clearances, unlike all their staff. Even Condi and Rummy have to get insulted by Polygraphers.
There's a good reason he has this power : do you remember, before the Iraq War? Everyone was clamoring for more information? Even the democrats? (Especially the Democrats.) How do you think Bush was going to provide this information? Google? Of course he had to declassify stuff, and I can't imagine that anybody would not understand that.
Anyway, the "bad leakers" were not empowered to leak anything. They were not elected as president or VP. They were not authorized to leak by the president or the VP. In fact, they did what they did to undermine the elected representative of the people. What they did is illegal and they should go to jail.
And, as I've described above, the administration is not "deciding" who is legally leaking and who isn't. Prosecutors do. In fact, you can play the home game. If you aren't (A) the Pres or VP, or (B) authorized by the same, you go to jail if you leak to the press.Indeed, my oath when I got my TS clearance specifically included "defending The Constitution". Even the oath itself recognizes that a higher cause trumps strict secrecy. That being said, I was never in contact with information that put me in that position. I do not envy people who are asked to decide between their oaths.
That's not what I heard
Anyway, that's irrelevant. What is relevant is that the NSA was caught red handed and is trying it's hardest to find and punish the people that exposed their illegal activities.
So in short: The criminals are trying to track down the witness so they can silence/discredit him/her. Kudos to ABC for not being intimidated.
Three cheers for the anyone brave enough to blow the wistle on corruption and abuse of power.
1) . . .
.
Put agents *actually* in the field at risk
How? How does it put individual agents at risk?
. . . puts Europeans at risk in the event that terrorists attempt a rescue . .
I think you watch too many movies.
2) . . . 3) . . . 4) . . .
Put American service members and civilians at risk by interfering with legitimate intelligence operations.
Overly broad, and you're ignoring that persons on US soil have Constitutional protections, regardless of whether or not the end result is criminal prosecution. If you're going to engage in domestic spying, you need effective oversight from the other two branches of government. If the executive branch deceives the other branches, then the American people's only recourse is thru oversight by the press.
Basically, you're just using a smoke screen. Why not take it to the extreme? How many service members' lives could we save if we lived in a complete police state where the executive could do whatever it wished?
You're basically saying, "In theory", and I'm not willing to trade my civil liberties for your "In theory, lives could be put at risk".
5) The only ACTUAL disclosure of an agent's identity, and you say conveniently say that her ID was no longer relevant. Meanwhile, anyone she had contact with could be in danger, regardless of whether or not she was their case officer. Innocent people might come to harm, let alone filed agents. And what sort of effect does this sort of disclosure have on field agents, knowing that your bosses will hang you out to dry, not merely for political expedience, but to attack political critics!
Basically, you can apologize all you want for the Bush administration, but as far as this Republican is concerned, your apology is no longer accepted.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
I think we should help the NSA correlate the data they're gathering by mailing in our phone books.
Imagine 214 million phone books showing up on the same day.
Given enough time (say 6 weeks to get the word out) it would send a strong message I think. In order to ensure that the phone books get recieved and open all we would need to do is mail them to the FOIA address and enclose a letter requesting access to any information they're gathering on us. This way they would have 20 days to respond and they're legally obliged to do so. Don't put your name on the package, only your address so that they MUST open it and read your letter.
I'm dead serious. It would be a great starting point and it's better than just complaining and worrying about it.
Let's pick a day and Mail them here:
National Security Agency
Attn: FOIA/PA Office (DC34)
9800 Savage Road, Suite 6248
Ft. George G. Meade, MD 20755-6248
That's in the Blue States. Here in the heart of Bushland (Houston, TX), you can get your teeth knocked out for criticising our President too loudly. It's difficult to get your point across to people who get all of their information from FOX News, and write you off as nuts the moment they realize what you're saying.
There are people trying to do something about this mess. Tom Delay has been effectively removed from power, Cindy Sheehan parked herself on Bush's doorstep for weeks, and I have a feeling the Hispanic population isn't very pleased with our current government right now, and will probably turn out to vote in massive numbers, with or without formal organization.
Even in the middle of a Red State, Americans are slowly changing their minds. I can't imagine what it looks like outside the US looking in, but I assure you we're not all sitting idly by watching our rights slip away.
1). This is the same press that has been nailed with scandal after scandal of lying to create sensationalism. I mean, what's the downside of lying here? They fcking hate the administration so a little lie gets them lots of attention and spins the haters even more.
2). You simply can't have a security policy where nutjobs working on secure projects figure their right to blab overrides everyone else's right to use technological advantages to catch the bad guys. This thing is self feeding because the press always tells half the truth and obscures the facts. Fck, most of the population now thinks the only reason we invaded Iraq was either because of WMD or Oil and that the government is listening in on everyone's phone conversations. LIES! LIES! LIES! LIES! Saddest of all, a bunch of you are happy to hear the lies and turn off your brains.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
The Republican species is extinct. I fail to see why people identify themselves with the party, except when they're using other people who call themselves Republicans as a source of polotical power.
The way I see it, the rug was pulled out from under the normal Republicans, and the neo-conservatives have taken their place using the people we normally associate as Republican to power their way up to the top. Naturally, being Republicans, they still vote Republican, because that's just what they do, and the New Republicans have taken advantage of this.
The neo-conservatives are like Cuckoo birds: they've laid their eggs in the Republicans' nest, the Republicans, serving as foster parents, have hatched the Cuckoo-Conservatives' eggs and have fed their chicks well. Soon enough, I expect that the Cuckoo-Conservative's offspring will push the Republican chicks out of the nest... Maybe we can call them Libertarians!
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
I don't know if I should even dignify this with a response, but:
Try on Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, and Ronald Reagan for size. You might not agree with their politics, but they were giants, especially in comparison to the moral midget we currently have occupying the oval office.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Bottom line: if guaranteeing the 1st and 4th amendments (free press and unreasonable searches, for those of you who slept through Civics class) means we lose a few good guys, then that's the cost of doing business. Cold, but true.
And, by the way, it's the cheapest possible course of action. The 1st and 4th amendments are worth many lives - they're worth as many lives as would be lost if they were not there. The *vast* majority of all governments that have controlled press and warrentless search and seizure become totalitarian and/or massive human rights violators within maybe a decade or two. I challenge the conservatives on
So when people say "Never again", they mean, "support your first and fourth amendments"