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."
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...
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.
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
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.