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."
Send all these freedom-hating reporters who seek the so-called "truth" to Gitmo!
Trolling is a art,
Without reading the article, it's not obvious at first glance which country the summary's referring to...
This smacks of journalists pompously elevating their self-importance to levels higher than they deserve.
Most "leaks" are on purpose to manipulate the press into covering something the administration wants them to cover. It's pretty hypocritical for this same administration to then punish those members of the press who were doing their bidding.
Bradley Holt
Yes, because punishing whistleblowers that uncover massive corruption in the government is good for all of us.
I thought someone said there was going to be free beer!
Those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear.
Of course, having an inside contact at the government is something to hide.
Hmmm, need to update that a little bit. "Those who have no criticism of the government have nothing to fear."
You mean how Bush outed Plame and thus caused the undercover company that watched Iran's nukes to fold? That kind of leak?
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable" - JFK
I thought the u.s. government was only supposed to be looking at calls to/from al-queda persons. At least that is what they keep repeating in defending their nsa spying on u.s. citizens fiasco. I guess it's just another lie.
Is there any oversight of this program whatsoever?
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
[searing sarcasm]
If leakers are allowed to reveal to reporters how incompetent, corrupt, and dishonest our leaders are, the terrorists have won.
[/searing sarcasm]
I'm calling BS - name one story broken by any media organization that precipitated a terrorist attack.
Plain and simple, this is a way for the powers-that-be to clamp down on news that makes them look bad.
'ARRGH! Pirate Designers of the Internet, we be!'
So you'd rather that Watergate never happened because Deep Throat was thrown in jail?
Trolling is a art,
Looks like the commies are going to get owned.
Every time the New York Times or the Washington Post leaks about some secret program that is used in the war on terror, therefor invalidating it, I wonder to myself if they will take responsibility for the next terrorist attack.
God Forbid the terrorists be blamed for the attacks. Much better to use the fear of terrorism to fight against whatever political beliefs you disagree with, right?
Man, they've sure taught you well haven't they...
Looks like the commies are going to get owned.
Yeah, because media that's critical of the government is a cornerstone of communist regimes.
Dead wrong. The reason we have journalistst and freedom of the press is because we can't trust the government. 99% of the time, the leak is someone who can't take whistleblower status but wants to tell the public about wrongdoing in the government. Should gool ol' dubya have been allowed to keep the leak about the secret CIA prisons from escaping? Absolutely not. But it's okay for him to out an active CIA agent, Mrs. Plame?
Read the fucking constitution and look up some judicial records before you open your big, dumb mouth please. The law is very specific about protecting journalistic sources, there is supposed to be no way around it.
Ex nihilo nihil fit.
Lives aren't at stake. The reporters aren't giving out troop movement and defence plans. They're reporting about things like highly illegal wire tapping and domestic surveilance. THis is a heavy handed attempt by the administration to scare whistle blowers out of telling the American people things they need to know. We have laws to protect these people for a reason, the US goverment is flaunting them.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
That was the first line of the first college lecture I ever had. Although the absolute veracity of the statement is likely untrue, the blunt assertion was given to make one point: Give up your rights, have more "security".
The point is this: leaks, crime, terrorism, etc. are a REQUIRED side effect of freedom. Americans will never get that, and will be happy to toss liberty away in order to prevent nebulous bad things from happening.
The United States is truly starting to resemble the old Soviet Union in so many ways. The Soviets had official state media; we have totally co-opted media outlets. The Soviets had strong controls on copy machines; we have DRM'd/watermarked copy machines (and output devices). The Soviets had one party rule; we have outright one party rule right now, which stemmed from effective one-party rule of the past (seems that the Democratic-Republican party has split, and one side came out on top). The Soviets had no expectation of privacy... and soon, neither will we.
The big difference is that the Soviets used an iron fist, as opposed to the USA's velvet glove, to smother freedom. The net result is the same.
There is not reply to this other than 'we don't think the president would do this'
Well... "conservatives"... this wasn't the point of founding this country What about the next president, or the one after that... still trust them?
As it is becoming more and more obvious that this administration leaked exactly such information, isn't it ironic that they are using phone records to find leakers? Do you think they will be the teensiest bit selective about what leakers they go after? Most leaks aren't about agents, but about government corruption. Another common type of leak is actually government propaganda, disguised as reporting.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
The story used to be that we were conducting surveillance by using the FISA courts. Then, it came out that we were actually doing some surveillance without FISA warrants, but it was all overseas. Then, it came out that only one end of a conversation had to be overseas in order for them to perform surveillence without a FISA warrant. Then, it came out that well, we're actually monitoring the telephone traffic of several tens of millions of Americans, but we've got a dang good legal basis that can do fifteen loop-de-loops and a quadruple lutz, depending on what your definition of "is" is--but don't expect us to ever actually justify that in a court of law, because these programs are so very classified that the prosecutors can't be granted the clearance necessary to pursue the cases, sorry.
If you're still willing to give the administration the benefit of the doubt on this matter, I have one helluva deal on a bridge for ya.
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
It is standard police procedure in a criminal investigation to subpoena or to get a search warrant for telephone records.
Exactly.. when you have a warrant or subpoena. Neither of which they have now.
It is standard police procedure in a criminal investigation to subpoena or to get a search warrant for telephone records. Nothing new or sensational to see here, move along.
Subpeona? Search warrant? Crime or no crime, this article makes no mention of those. Have you been reading the news lately?
It is standard police procedure in a criminal investigation to subpoena or to get a search warrant for telephone records.
Somehow, I doubt the administration bothered with technicalities like "warrants".
I hope you do. Am I the only one that remembers Nixon's enemies list?
The primary issue with all of this news regarding government snooping is oversight. Don't give me this "we're at war," "why do you care if you aren't doing anything wrong" crap. We should have a goverment of checks and balances, which were designed to limit the (almost invariably corrupting) concentration of political power. What happens when the Administration alone gets to decide what constitutes what is "wrong?"
I feel like an alarmist raising the specter of the creep of Totalitarianism in the U.S., but how else do you explain this? Don't feed me the war on terror talking points; consider:
The "I" here is Gustave Gilbert; the respondent is Hermann Goering.
I realize that by Godwin's Law I've lost this argument already, but if Goering's comments from 60 years ago don't make your spine tingle, what does?
Simple Unexpected Concrete Credible Emotional Stories
I mean, I'm sure that there are a lot of calls made to "reporters" at Fox News. But I'll bet $20 that we're not going to hear about any phone records of Fox News "reporters" being checked.
Makes you wonder, eh?That's why I put in the "Those who have no criticism of the government have nothing to fear."
If you're "reporting" a "leak" that hurts Bush and Co's political opponents
If you're "reporting" a "leak" that says Bush and Co are doing good
If you're reporting a leak that says Bush and Co are doing something that may be illegal
Boy, I never saw this one coming. The government using their phone number records to investigate things that aren't related to terrorists. I sure thought they were going to stick to protecting us from terrorists with this data.
I have no problem with the government obtaining a warrant to get this information. But that's not what they've done. What they've done is about as good as tapping phones. Anyone who sees it differently has WAY too much trust of the U.S. government.
And I know that they'll argue that these leaks somehow put us in danger of a terrorist attack. I mean, if the subject had been something as mundane as outting a CIA operative, then of course, they'd be sure to overlook it, particularly if the leak came out of the offices of the President and Vice President.
It amazes me that people aren't yelling and screaming about this and marching in front of the White House. People in this country have become too complacent and they're going to lose the freedoms that so many people have died to protect over the years. And when it comes to that, we'll have nobody to blame but ourselves.
We can blame Bush and his administration, but when it comes down to it, they're not to blame. Because we know what they're doing and we're not kicking their asses out on the street.
I mean, he only spied on ONE HOTEL ROOM.
How awfully nice to have the technology to spy on everyone in the country at once, and sufficiently rabid supporters to shout down anyone who questions the practice.
That's "Mr. Soulless Automaton" to you, Bub.
You are right, because the government will be completely trustworthy and will only abuse the power to tap reporter's phones when it's a matter of National Security. And we can use all those other cases where the government didn't lie to us as evidence of how trustworthy and wonderful they really and truly are.
Ohh hey, you have a bit of Kool Aid on your chin, might want to wash that off.
I thought someone said there was going to be free beer!
Can you not understand that well-paid, highly-cleared NSA employees do not scuttle their careers without good reason? The people doing the leaking are being asked to do something really evil, and they are not happy about it.
They're also taking a good-sized risk of winding up in an unmarked jail cell, or grave.
They're good people, they are saying "this is out of control and the citizenry must not take it any more".
Posts like this are so mind boggling, it's hard to tell if it's just sarcasm/trolling, but my gut tells me you're actually serious.
Calling them traitors and claiming they are putting troops at danger is flat out intentional ignorance. Mainly, because none of this has anything to do with our troops in Iraq. So, while it makes a great sound bite to the folks too lazy to take a moment to use their own brains to come to a conclusion, it simply makes you look like an idiot to the rest of us who bother to figure things out for ourselves.
Your "traitors" are truly hero's who are literally putting their lives on the line for the real greater good of the country, exposing massive government corruption and widespread illegal activies of those in charge.
The true traitors are those folks in power supressing the truth about their own illegal activities.
Sorry, but when neither is doing their job and people are being tortured and possibly killed without fair trial, it's time to start leaking to the press. That's the bottom line, and you don't get to hide behind "classified information" when you do something that unethical. Period.
Ex nihilo nihil fit.
They are violating their oaths of secrecy.
I for one don't believe that an oath to secrecy trumps the constitution, or the risk of the destruction of our nation from corruption. Obviously the people releasing this information agree. They believe that our rights and freedoms are more important than keeping damaging secrets. They of all people would know that the goings on that we're not aware of are more damaging to our nation than they are helping. They wouldn't release it otherwise.
Selective enforcement of the law is one of the hallmarks of corruption.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
P.S.: Remember waaaaaay back when when you were desperately trying to protect reporter's rights to not divulge their sources when an administration official leaked classified information (poor poor Scooter, he should have been protected, it's all those other leakers that deserve jail time).. well the Judge in that case ruled that the Fitzgerald could not have the phone records of any reporters, because they are constitutionally protected.. I didn't hear your outrage back then that the government wasn't allowed to look at the records..
I thought someone said there was going to be free beer!
And who are you going to report misdeeds to when ultimatly, the person who heads both the executive branch and the military thinks he can do what ever he pleases?
Before they took any oath of secrecy, they took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States; I think that trancends whatever policies -- secret or public -- put into place by the reigning administration.
Oh yeah. Lots of lives at stake... Let's review the biggest intelligence "leaks" of the last few years:
* The CIA running secret prisons in East Europe
* The NSA's illegal and unconstitutional wiretapping of US citizens without oversight
* The CIA secretly extraditing terror suspects (even from non-US nations) to countries which often use torture, such as Egypt and Afghanistan
I don't see how a single life was endangered by any of those leaks. In fact, they seem like perfectly normal whistle-blowing on a Govenment which is grossly overstepping the bounds of the power granted to it, and avoiding the Congressional checks and balances which exist.
But there's one more leak:
* The exposure of Valerie Plame and an entire CIA front company. Now there we have a leak which actually had the potential to endanger lives. But wait.. who was behind that leak? The White House themselves. - And for what? Petty revenge on a critic.
So we've got an administration here who themselves leak classified intel when convenient to them, who harshly persue those whistleblowers who leak anything which might be damaging to the Administration. An administration who misconstrued, misrepresented, and outright lied about intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq War.
And now you expect me to believe that this same Administration, in their quest to find out who's talking to who, is not interested in finding whistleblowers and critics, but rather acting purely out of an interest of protecting national security and saving lives?
Bullshit.
No administration has ever used the intelligence community for partisan poltical gain to the extent that the current one has. None. There are people in the intelligence community, be they Democrats, people critical of these wiretaps, or simply professionals who are pissed off of having their agency's work misused for partisan political goals, and then being the scapegoat once things turn sour. What this bullshit is about is nothing less than an attempt by the administration to purge the agencies of these critics.
It is not about national security. It's not about saving lives. People working in intelligence don't look kindly on that kind of leaks. It is their lives which are at stake. But leaking the fact that they're secretly running prisons - knowledge of that is NOT a threat to national security or lives in the intelligence community.
The only thing that knowledge threatens is the political goals of the Bush administration. If that's what they're going to use the CIA for, then I fully support any CIA employee who does the moral thing and tells the American people what the heck their government is up to behind their backs. Those people are not leakers and traitors. They are heroes and patriots.
Time for the Fourth Estate to pick up the challenge. Its passivity and timidity post 9/11 and the run-up to the war in Iraq fed this kind of arrogance. If we want to ensure Orwell's tale is only cautionary and not prescient, the press will need to act quickly and deliberately, challenging these bullies instead of simply being their mouthpieces. Quit worrying about ratings; start worrying about credibility and the truth.
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.
I get so tired of people running out the old saw about putting people's lives in danger...I'm one of those people...and I signed on to protect and defend the constitution. You either have to be a right-wing nutcase or have your head in the sand not to realize that the current administration is vastly expanding its role in relationship to the other branches.
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, for all the chickenhawks out there who use soldiers as shields for illegal acts-- to quote my favorite actor, "Pick up a rifle and stand a post."
It's about time we recognize who the phone-tappers, surveillance-freaks, torture-defenders, and black-box voting stooges really are:
They are a threat to Americans, our way of life, and our democracy.
They are a national security threat.
So are their defenders.
I'm really not comfortable with simply letting the administration decide which internal leaks are whistleblowers, and which are national security risks. The fact is that anything that threatens the authority of the administration is considered to be a national security risk by that administration.
I expect that Nixon felt that the leaks which exposed Watergate were threats to national security, and would have stopped them if they could. No administration is happy to have their corruption or other illegal activities released to the media, but if we allowed the government to do whatever they think is necessary, then we are pretty much guaranteeing that they will do things which are not authorized under the Constitution.
Look, I am a Republican myself, and am very politically active. It doesn't matter whether the President is a Republican or a Democrat, both parties are capable of horrendus corruption when they don't have the media actively trying to keep the public informed. I won't hesitate when stating that I am not comfortable with the activities that Bush has gotten involved in lately, but I am confident that if we allow the public to know as much as is possible about what is going on, it will serve as a check upon his powers. This will also encourage him to think twice before he does something really raw...
Allowing the administration to hide behind the cover of "national security" is very dangerous.
Finally, does anyone else see the irony in the Bush Administration going through phone records to identify who leaked the stories which exposed their program of going through people's phone records?
Slashdot, where you get modded down as redundant for stating an opposing viewpoint... Independent thought anyone?
Yeah, that's the path that Sibel Edmonds followed:
But what happened to this rule-follower?
Certainly she didn't just give up did she?
So, following the rules, a translator reports the fact that her supervisor is inept, that there might be compromised agents in the FBI and that some of the materials involved in 9/11 were translated improperly and what happens? She gets fired. She follows the legal option and the Bush administration uses the State Secres Privelage to have her case dismissed entirely.
Seriously, if you were riding on a bus and the driver were drunk, wouldn't you want someone to say something? Or would you rather they wait and call headquarters at the next stop?
Source article [http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/18828res200
Watergate had nothing to do with classified information/national security
You remember the Pentagon Papers?
Daniel Ellsberg, a former Marine and a researcher for the RAND corporation surreptitiously copied "the Pentagon Papers", a multi-volume history of the U.S. involvement in Vietnam. Hoping to inform the American public of U.S. mistakes in Vietnam, Ellsberg then released the papers to the New York Times.
President Nixon attempted, on national security grounds, to halt their publication. When the Supreme Court declined to uphold the suppression of the papers, Nixon ordered G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt to break in to Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office, hoping to find information with which to publicly smear Ellsberg.
That break-in, and the others that followed at the Watergate Building, became known as the Watergate conspiracy.
It also destroyed the government's case against Ellsberg: because of the break-in and an allegation that Nixon had ordered the CIA to "totally incapacitate" (e.g., kill) Ellsberg, the government's case against Ellsberg for conspiracy and espionage was dropped.
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
I, as an IT nerd, am applying to business school for an MBA because, frankly, modern IT bores me. We're on the cusp of machines engineering machines (10 years), making diversification an essential pursuit. When I got into IT, it was like the Wild West and today central administration has taken much of the fun out of the field.
As I started studying economics, I came across a startling paradigm: "if it can exist, then it must." I had heard "if it can exist, it will"; the difference is the probable to the imperative. I'd never considered the imperative of entity existence yet the examples are limitless. If something can exist, then it does and it packaged and sold and someone makes money off it. Witness Japanese 7-11s selling air and the giant bottled water industry. That's all marketing. Do you really believe a two minute shot of pure oxygen does you any long term good? Is the solution for water-borne pollution to consume water in hydrocarbon bottles versus more stringent environmental regulations? It's fucking madness.
Back to IT. Look around you, people, you're nerds and you're smart. The first thing any IT person worth their salt will do is build a database of problems and start tracking needs, for you need to build a history in order to predict how much money you will need next year; it's about tracking resources.
Those resources can be anything, toner, ink cartridges, gigabit fiber ethernet transceivers, SCSI cables, Exchange licenses, web queries. Let's not fuck with the definition of resources.
Instead let's fuck with the concept that we have micro-databases and macro-databases. Micro-databases track the number of bits flowing over port 24 of router XYZ. Macro-databases aggregate all of your micro-databases into "our backbone is 39% utilized and we should plan for capital investment in 2007 of $xx based on 12% traffic growth per year."
Now, replace toner cartridge with New York Times reporter and bandwidth capacity with voter sentiment.
You think 1984 is scary? Open your mind and start changing up the nouns in your daily work. Imagine applying web metrics to health care premiums. Compare intellectual dissent to bugs in program code. We can dance with whatever metaphor you like but while you pussy sissy's debate monolithic kernels and the cost of the PlayStation 3, someone is making sure to build a database that will prohibit your children from having any social mobility and terminate your gene line in a coal mine somewhere.
As I write, I get more vitriolic because the IT and software people I know are among the smartest, most well-educated and most selfish people I know. You think Linux is a project borne of love? Naw look at the psychology behind it all. You have a bunch of pasty nerds who were never cool and always felt excluded by the mainstream social community at different levels of compulsory education and escaped their angst by climbing into a computer screen and fabricating a virtual world.
Unfortunately, they didn't watch Real Genius closely enough for the software code that eventually made them cool is now going to enslave them because they care more about putting an MP3 player in their toilet that their fucking freedom.
Surprise hat. Welcome to hive brain nerd. I'm a marketer with degrees in sociology and psychology. I'll keep telling you linux will get you pussy and you'll keep trading your civil liberties for new Playstations.
nuckcl@yahoo.com
The part I find incredibly frightening is that it seems so many citizens of this country do see a problem with this. Sure, they are coming for the communists first, but then what? I am afraid of the hysterical masses that are willing to hand over MY rights to the government. I grew up thinking that the whole purpose of the Bill of Rights was to protect me and others like me from the wacko majority?
You know, we spend a lot of time teaching our children about the men that founded this country, however flawed personally they were, and the ideals they believed in. Maybe it's time we actually stood by those words.
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Benjamin Franklin
Quotes from ABC News Blog by members of the public:
"Good! I hope they do find out who is leaking national security info to the press. I'm tired of the press helping our enemies. Maybe you guys should start trying to "FOR the USA" instead of "AGAINST the USA" ALL THE TIME. I hope the FBI nails lots of idiots who are out to destroy the intelligence agencies and cost us more soldiers and spys!"
"'Bout time you guys are roped in."
"Excellent the Media needs looking after, Traitors most of them......."
"good, you seditionist creeps deserve what you get. who knows how many serviceman have died because of your "right to know""
"I hope the information they gain allows them to catch the scum that leak information, and helps them arrest the communist scum who publish it."
"Well maybe ABC news better stop leaking classified information. This only helps our enemies and right now I believe ABC news is an enemy of the US."
"You didn't inconvenience someone, you broke the law. It's called a criminal investigation!!!!"
"I believe that it is a great idea to maintain telephone surveilance over news organizations who disclose classified and sensitive secret information. Lets nail the government employees who knowingly break their oath to not divulge classified information."
"GOOD! I hope they find out who is reporting all of these leaks. And I hope you are tried and perhaps spend some time in jail for it. KEEP CALLING and I hope they track your every word!"
Um, yes, divulging classified information certainly can be whistleblowing, depending on how you look at it.
Step 1: Government does something unconstitutional.
Step 2: Government classifies the fact that it did that thing.
Step 3: Someone with both clearance and a conscience exposes said unconstitutional act, so that they responsible parties might be brought to justice.
*YES* he said it couldnt be done, no matter how you looked at it. But I showed that it could be done!!! go ME!!!!
*self-five*
In all seriousness, however, if you'd like to chime back in and answer how the fuck exposing an unconstitutional domestic spying operatin by the government is going to directly lead to the death of servicemen abroad, I'd like to hear it. This is nothing like a leak exposing an undercover operative who had worked abroad. *cough* this is a domestic operation, engaged in primarily by hackers at computer terminals.
The inviolable nature of the "state security" cry is necessary only in so far as it is justifiably used. Given this, and most other, administration's complete lack of credibility, I will automatically call bullshit when they invoke state security to avoid explaining something illegal/embarrasing they have done to us.
Just to preempt the "well, if we dont unconstitutionally spy on our own populace, we'll have incomplete intell, and our servicemen will walk into ambushes, and terrorists will bomb every major american city into rubble" argument: The ends to not justify the means.
That is why we have a constitution guaranteeing certain freedoms from government oppression.
That is why we are supposedly better than the terrorists: We consider certain actions beneath us.
Come read my stupid blagablog. Rants and Giggles
The Constitution specifically states that there can be no laws which abridge (i.e., curtail) the freedom of the press. In plain English that means that The Constitution specifially withholds from the government any authority to even investigate the activities of the people when they are about the business of publishing information.
There are no exceptions to this - not even 'national security'.
Of course if The Constitution is considered merely to be a 'Goddamned Piece of Paper', as Bush has described it, and if the people who are involved in violating The Constitution don't care about adhering to it, then all bets are off, which is pretty much where we in the US are at these days.
The intent is not to punish the journalist
Don't be so quick to discount the possibility that the reporter might be an Al Kaida affiliate. The Bush Administration said they were only data mining phone logs of Americans to go after Al Kaida, so if they're focused on a journalist, that journalist is probably an associate of the terrorists. {cough}
Don't Panic! If you're not a reporter, you have nothing to fear from the government!
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
"nebulous bad things"?
Umm, there are some craters in NYC and PA and a lot of relatives of dead people that differ with you on your opinion of "nebulous". One of them is a firefighter cousin of mine.
There is a substantive threat out there, and all the naysaying you put forth doesnt change it. Please start dealing with reality, not fantasy.
Whats important is that we do recoginize that there is a threat and as a nation PUBLICLY decide what we are going to do about it. Pretending its not there and we can go back to 1996 isn't going to work (thats your mistkae). Neither is hiding all our efforts under blanket secrecy to prevent such a thing from happening (thats Bush's mistake).
As for this article, please go read it - and other related articles for more detail. The FBI is investigating a crime - the unlawful disclosure of classified information to those not authorized to recieve it USC 18 700-something (you can look it up - its on the books online someplace). Its also a crime to recieve such information and not notify the proper authority, so the reporters may be culpable as well (but may be exempt under Freedom of the Press - thats for the court to decide).
As a result the FBI have gotten court orders to get the call detail records of those suspected of being complicit in this crime. From my time in telecom, I can tell you that this is a routine occurance, and most telcos even have an office that deals with these things, one that is in weekly contact with the local FBI field offices. The surprising thing is that they dont even need a warrant - a simple "Section 2701" court order suffices - and the law even orders that the judge "Shall Issue" such an order when it comes to these kinds of records (in other words the judge doesn't have much choice if the FBI says the need it for investigation into a possible criminal offense - they show up, tell them what they want and walk out with a court order for the telco). There is very little legal protection for this sort of record when a crime is being investigated.
Just though a few facts might counter the hysteria. The sky isnt falling - at least in this instance - the laws are working as they are written to do. And those of you who cite "Secret Prison Camps" - go back and re-research that. They apparently never existed and were a story planted in order to catch leakers (which is what this may be all about).
[And mods, please remember an opposing point of view is not flamebait nor is it a troll. Funny that I oppose both sides, so Im probably going to get modded into oblivion by both sides]
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo! http://goo.gl/J9bkO
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.
In the US are in the CIA.
/ 002721.html
e x.php?showtopic=285&view=getnewpost
I'll probably get more Troll mods for this one. It's not.
http://www.orlingrabbe.com/binladin_timosman.htm
http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/attytood/archives
http://invisionfree.com/forums/4th_Space_Cafe/ind
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
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.
And the article is about the executive branch of the government proactively monitoring the phone lines of reporters in case they talk to a "leaker".
:p
Your "zomg it's classified information nub!" argument almost holds water, until you realize that there is a Judicial branch of the government meant to oversee these types of activities specifically to prevent abuse by the Executive. If the Executive is willing to get court orders to do this type of monitoring, then it's within the letter of the law, else it's just abuse of power to stop dwindling poll numbers.
But keep on listening to the spin and disregard the law, because our National Security is at stake..
I thought someone said there was going to be free beer!
Did you even read what you just wrote? Read it again. Here, I'll point out the problem:
My point, and my only point, is that the leakers knew the consequences of what they were doing
Which was followed by:
If they believe what they were doing is right, why do they hide?
Why in the hell would someone openly try to be punished for doing the right thing from those who are doing wrong or evil? Have you ever heard of the Witness Protection Program? Why do you think they hide witnesses?
Guess people shouldn't expect someone with a sig of "666" to understand right from wrong or complex subjects like morality.
Seriously i mean ? All i hear that loose organisations with small representative base among population trying to do something.
Arent these YOUR rights ? Why arent you fighting back ? Isnt being ripped off your rights by your government similar to being ripped off your rights by a foreign power, like in 1774 ?
Read radical news here
Shirer (1959) has this translation:
"Who decides what is a damaging secret, for that matter?"
There's a standing rule in the military that you don't carry out illegal orders from your commanding officer. No Western military tribunal will accept the excuse "I was just following orders." This is because morality can't be put down in a book as a list of numbered, sanctioned rules - we would always miss at least one (and more likely miss thousands).
Soldiers are not expected to be machines, contrary to popular belief; they have to morally evaluate the orders they are given, because it is their responsibility to stand up and say "NO!" if they are given an illegal order (like "Ok, let's take some embarassing pictures of some of our prisoners over there. Say cheese!").
Every American citizen has the same responsibility, ESPECIALLY those with security clearances. It is often only they that will ever be aware of abuses being carried out by our government. There are no hard and fast rules for recognizing unethical or immoral behavior; it is up to us, as moral, thinking beings, to figure it out.
We are the fire that lights our world.. and we are the fire that consumes it.
Given what little we've been able to glean about these programs (which increasingly appear part of a broad, focused initiative to enable domestic information gathering without *wiretapping*) and that thousands of false leads seem decidedly counter-productive, their primary utility appears to be the extortion of political opponents and intimidation of the press.
And no, there is no oversight. That is the statutory role of the FISA court, whose creation was in direct response to the preceived need for warrantless surveillance. This court was avoided precisely because the true scope of this fishing expedition is in direct violation of the 4th Amendment, as the court would have informed Cheney, Hayden, Gonzalez, et. al. directly and in no uncertain terms.
Dubya makes Tricky Dick look like a patsy. These actions have threatened the foundation of the Republic and as they have sown, so shall they reap. Far from strengthening authority, they are challenging American's respect for it; this will not be without consequences for the health of our political system. Let's not forget that the *malaise* of the Carter years was largely a consequence of the betrayal of America's trust in civil institutions by a sitting President.
illegitimii non ingravare
It's high time the people who have taken it upon themselves to sabotage this administration be brought to justice.
I agree with part of your statement: It's high time this administration be brought to justice.
There is nothing "illegal" about dis-obeying an illegal order. FUCK!!! Didn't we go through that sufficiently back at the Nurnberg Trials?
There is nothing "illegal" about telling someone that you were given an illegal order.
If the order / operation is ILLEGAL then refusing it or revealing it cannot be illegal.Get a fucking clue you ass-sucking moron!
Look up the "Witness Protection Program". We have a long history of protecting people who broke illegal oaths to reveal the facts and who didn't want to "face the consequences" that criminals would like to bring down upon them.
Why do you want them to suffer just because the CRIMINALS are part of the GOVERNMENT?
Oh, it's because you don't want them to reveal the lies in the first place, isn't it?
Which of the following leaks have put exposed field agents and put them at potential risk?
1) Secret CIA prisons in Eastern Europe
2) Warrantless taps on calls going into and out of the US by the NSA
3) Database of American call records assembled by the NSA
4) Monitoring of reporters phone calls by as yet unnamed federal agency
5) Identifying CIA case officer to scare a whistle blower
So far, Novak is the only "journalist" who has put anyone in potential danger, and we know the leak came out of the Vice President's office.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Thank you, brother Republican. If our party is going to have any credibility going forward, it will be because a few of us recognize that Bush and his followers have betrayed this nation.
Frankly, if it is true that the administration is monitoring the calls of reporters, the mind boggles (and yes, the irony increases the boggle). It's insane and stupid that they'd do this at this time. I once thought that Clinton was the epitome of arrogance during the Lewinsky scandal, but this is so much worse. What are they thinking?
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Facts have a well known liberal bias.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
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.
You're still not getting the underlying concept.
When the secret activity is illegal activity, then the oath no longer holds legal force. In fact, not breaking an oath might be seen as illegal, as it is engaging in a cover up of an illegal act. If there had been proper judicial and congressional oversight of the activity, we could then have some confidence that the activity was not illegal. Since the Bush Administration has intentionally hid these activities from oversight, it's not unreasonable to doubt their legality.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Even better, some say Bush may simply carry fowards into a "permanent second term".
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."
Durring a time of war, releasing classified information is an act of treason last I heard. So ya, it's serious shit that DOES rank up there with terrorism.
Hey, don't look at me, I didn't write the rules.
Life is not for the lazy.
It's called Guantanamo Bay Cuba. Where at least one Australian citizen has been held, by the US, without trial for 4 years. If he's guilty of something, hold a fair trial and send him to prison. If you can't convict him of anything, then let him go. It's as simple as that.
09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
I'm sorry for the loss of your cousin.
At the same time, don't assume that I have no experience with this - I lived three blocks north of the WTC that day. I've had relatives die in the towers. I was evacuated. I'll probably suffer from some exotic respiratory illness in the future, thanks to the EPA's lies. I think that I can safely say that I've had my life touched by terrorism. I only mention it because you infer that somehow being a victim makes your arguement more relevant. It doesn't.
That being said: We live in a country where roughly 20,000 citizens are murdered, mostly by their fellow citizens, yearly. I'm sure that I can come up with many other salient figures, but let's stay with good old murder. So, 20k died in 2001, and every year since then. 100k dead because of the murderers.
Imagine if Bush had declared a War on Murder. We're going to do the following:
* Spend a trillion dollars, to rebuild lots and lots of stuff in major cities.
* Monitor the phones of all Americans. Without warrants.
* Have forced, unpaid overtime for all law-enforcement officials. Oh, and they cannot retire, either.
* Have private security forces, on the government payroll, also doing stuff. Except that they're unaccountable to anyone, so they do a lot of bad stuff.
* Put "known murderer associates" in prison, no trial, no representation.
* Torture said "known murderer associates" for information regarding the murderers.
This is a pretty direct analogy.
But, remember - we're going to end murder, right? We're going to Win the War on Murder! Mission Accomplished!
Yeah. Americans would never, ever allow this. It'd never happen. *You* probably wouldn't want it to happen.
Of course, the average American is much more likely to be murdered "normally" than as a result of terrorism. Hell, they're much more likely to be killed by their husband, wife, parent, friend, lover, neighbor - really, anyone BESIDES a "terrorist". So, what rights should we give up to stop these killers?
Please don't tell me about substantive threats. There are many threats to the safety and security of American citizens, but terrorism doesn't merit the supposed cure that this administration wants to foist on the people.
jh
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 differences are:
1) The IRS is collecting information openly, with the acquiescence, albeit grudging, of the American people.
2) The IRS' use of the collected information is constrained by law, and they follow those rules.
3) The IRS' activity is monitored by Congress, which can and does call IRS officials to account for the actions of the agency.
Get it now?
Umm, there are some craters in NYC and PA and a lot of relatives of dead people that differ with you on your opinion of "nebulous". One of them is a firefighter cousin of mine.
There is a substantive threat out there, and all the naysaying you put forth doesnt change it. Please start dealing with reality, not fantasy.
Whats important is that we do recoginize that there is a threat and as a nation PUBLICLY decide what we are going to do about it. Pretending its not there and we can go back to 1996 isn't going to work (thats your mistkae). Neither is hiding all our efforts under blanket secrecy to prevent such a thing from happening (thats Bush's mistake).
For starters, you're jumping to one hell of a conclusion by conflating my opposition to how our government is handling the terror threat with me somehow sticking my head in the sand and pretending that the whole wide world simply wuvs us and wouldn't hurt a hair on our heads. I don't think we should "go back" to ignoring terrorism. I also don't think that we're tackling the problem in the right fashion, either--and I get rather exercised by people who suggest that my failure to support the battle as it is currently being waged is, by extension, a failure to grasp the gravity of the situation.
I do take terrorism seriously, and frankly, I think the administration is making us far, far more enemies than allies in this regard. Nearly five years after 9/11, most of the world harbors dislike for our nation and our policies; startlingly large chunks of certain regions absolutely, vehemently abhor us, and actively wish to cause us harm. Tough talk about evil regimes and no negotiating with rogue nations looks good for the cameras, but it is simply unsustainable in the long term. Our military has been running at capacity with stop-loss orders for several years now, we're "meeting" reduced recruiting goals, and the crown jewel of our global offensive on terror is in an active civil war that we are pretty much powerless to stop--all we can do is supress it somewhat. On the international front, we've engaged in so much saber-rattling, "don't-fuck-with-us-we're-crazy"-style foreign relations that our allies are distancing themselves from us, and our enemies are starting to call our bluff. Our hands are pretty much tied when it comes to Iran, with our choices being largely restricted to "hope the EU 3 make a breakthrough" and "full war". We recently taught the Palestineans a valuable lesson about democracy in this brave new world: if you don't elect who we want you to elect, you'll pay dearly for it. North Korea is off the diplomatic radar again, since we're spending most of our diplomatic energy on keeping Iraq's civil war from erupting completely. Our president's staunchest ally is absolutely loathed by his populace and is on his way out. Our alliance with Pakistan will last only so long as the US-friendly military junta remains in power; a popular uprising would be all too happy to cut ties with America. Good 'ol "Pootie Poot" is finally showing his colors, which look something different from when he was chumming it with our president those years ago. Venezuela, should have been a fairly minor diplomatic thorn in our side, has turned into a full-scale pissing match between two men too proud to have anything short of their way. Even Afghanistan is still in limbo, with the Taliban making a limited resurgence and various warlords cum politicos jockeying for power.
How, exactly, is this the profile of a nation that is winning a struggle against international terrorism?
I care about national security. I care about combating terrorism. I also get a little ticked when people accuse me of living in a fantasy land simply because I think we're not going about things the right way. Since 9/11, I've lived in DC and Baltimore. I lived smack in the middle of the DC Sniper. If you think I spent those da
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
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.
Try on Teddy Roosevelt
Yup. Bit of a racist dick, but ya gotta love the trust-busting.
Dwight Eisenhower
Yup. But next to today's GOP, he'd almost be a communist by now.
Ronald Reagan
No thanks. He had bucketloads of charisma, but not much else. Inventing the multi-trillion dollar defecit and helping to get the God-gun nut-free market jihad rolling weren't his most notable achievements. I would take Reagan on his worst day over Bush on his best day in a heartbeat, however.