US Justice Department Dug Up Reporter's Phone, Bank Records

tripleevenfall writes "A court filing provides new details about the extraordinary measures Justice Department prosecutors are using to identify government leakers. Prosecutors obtained a suspect's telephone, credit and bank records. Lucy Dalglish, of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press said, 'This tells us the Obama administration will do almost anything to figure out who is leaking government information.'"

Comments

Okay, And?

[JRHelgeson]

How, exactly, is this news?

Re:Okay, And?

[hduff]

How, exactly, is this news?

And they do it on the cops shows on TV at the drop of a hat.

Re:Okay, And?

[WrongSizeGlass]

How, exactly, is this news?

I think this is supposed to be news because the President who did it wasn't named 'Bush'. Though we generally expected more from Obama (eg, less of this stuff) we're all being reminded that whomever runs the show acts more like the one they replaced then we wanted/hoped.

Re:Okay, And?

[countertrolling]

And what's this "almost anything"? Please! It's the damn government. It does what it wants.

Re:Okay, And?

[davecb]

It's a tiny bit dishonest to say "the X administration" unless it was a conscious policy of X, not something that you can expect to see from X-1 and x+1. It also appears in the topic sentence of the cited article, which is a tip-off:

If someone wants you to believe something that isn't true, it will appear in the first sentence, even if it logically doesn't belong there or seems jarring. That's a psychological trick that dates back to the ancient Greeks. It was reputedly a specific teaching of the sophists[1].

.--dave
[1] citation needed, although it was on my Plato course several centuries ago...

Re:Okay, And?

[cadience]

Sure, it's not news to you, but it still merits reporting. If a tree falls in the forest and no-one hears it, does it make a sound - or something like that.

Re:Okay, And?

[Jane Q. Public]

It's news because it is yet another example of Obama's public campaign (and in-office) lies. This is yet another promise he made during his campaign and in office (protecting confidential news sources) that he broke at the first opportunity, and continues to do.

Let's face it: Obama tends to say one thing publicly, then behind everybody's back does the opposite. By now you can't convince me that it isn't his real policy, because he's done it too often.

Re:Okay, And?

[peragrin]

um that or it is the justice department doing things as they always have, and the administration in charge knows nothing of.

When you get so many layers of beuacracy those in charge really aren't in charge, because they aren't told everything.

Being president of the USA sucks. people expect you to know every detail of the 10 million employees under you. While Bush can be blamed on lots of things and Obama is doing some really nasty shite themselves, not everything can be blamed on "the administration".

Re:Okay, And?

[sjames]

Why dishonest. It's no less good or bad just because more than one administration does it. What's dishonest is ignoring it or not pinning the blame/credit squarely on the person responsible.

Re:Okay, And?

[starfishsystems]

You're saying that Barack Obama instructed the Justice Department to obtain this information?

Wow, that's like no other government I've ever seen, and I've lived and paid taxes in a lot of countries. Mostly, what I've seen is governments that are not under the effective control of any one person. Most large bureacracies are so ponderous that even very deliberate changes in official policy have marginal effect on entrenched attitudes and behavior. But I guess the United States must be an exception. Obama has some special power to change all this, a power that he's failing to exercise?

Re:Okay, And?

[causality]

It's a tiny bit dishonest to say "the X administration" unless it was a conscious policy of X, not something that you can expect to see from X-1 and x+1. It also appears in the topic sentence of the cited article, which is a tip-off:

Sorry but if someone is not prepared to take responsibility for the actions of their underlings then they are not fit to be in a position of authority. It's alright, plenty of people are not cut out for leadership just like plenty of people are not computer technicians. I don't buy the phony distinction of "conscious policies" and "unconscious policies". If you are in charge and you don't know what your underlings are doing, you're incompetent; if you're in charge and you know what your underlings are doing and you do not require them to change, it is because you approve whether this approval is stated or unstated.

Anyone who thinks that's a tough standard is free to find a job less demanding than the Presidency.

 

If someone wants you to believe something that isn't true, it will appear in the first sentence, even if it logically doesn't belong there or seems jarring. That's a psychological trick that dates back to the ancient Greeks. It was reputedly a specific teaching of the sophists[1].

I would say that if that's all it takes to get someone to believe a lie, especially about anything important, then their love of truth and commitment to objectivity were non-existent anyway. They are soft-minded, naive, and their deceit is inevitable. The only question is who will fool them first. I wish it weren't so easy to deceive so many people but that's the reality.

Re:Okay, And?

[Anonymous Coward]

the Obama administration will do almost anything

How, exactly, is this news?

Confirmation is nice to report.

Re:Okay, And?

[causality]

You're saying that Barack Obama instructed the Justice Department to obtain this information?

Wow, that's like no other government I've ever seen, and I've lived and paid taxes in a lot of countries. Mostly, what I've seen is governments that are not under the effective control of any one person. Most large bureacracies are so ponderous that even very deliberate changes in official policy have marginal effect on entrenched attitudes and behavior. But I guess the United States must be an exception. Obama has some special power to change all this, a power that he's failing to exercise?

In a word: yes. He has. The U.S. has three branches of government. The President has no direct control over the legislative and judicial branches. However, the President is the undisputed leader of the executive branch. Every other member of the executive branch is his subordinate. If the head of an executive department will not comply with the President's wishes, the President can fire that person and replace them with someone else.

For example, Obama disagrees with what is called the "Defense of Marriage Act". Eric Holder is the Attorney General, that is, Holder is the head of the Department of Justice. The DoJ is part of the executive branch. Obama has directly instructed Holder to refuse to enforce this particular law. Holder has three choices in the matter: 1) comply with Obama's order, 2) refuse to comply and be fired and replaced, or 3) resign and be replaced. (Incidentally, this is an attack against the concept of rule of law -- the way we are supposed to deal with laws we don't like is to get them changed, not to selectively enforce them, but I digress).

Obama could absolutely require the DoJ to stop obtaining this information. He doesn't do this for one reason and one reason alone: he does not wish to.

Re:Okay, And?

[causality]

Being president of the USA sucks. people expect you to know every detail of the 10 million employees under you.

That sounds like yet another good argument in favor of a smaller, less powerful federal government. That would be more manageable and therefore more likely to ensure accountability. Though as far as how badly it sucks to be President, remember these are people who strongly desire power. Power can and should carry a great deal of responsibility. If anything, it doesn't carry enough. I have no sympathy whatsoever if someone's thirst for political power causes them some occasional discomfort.

 

While Bush can be blamed on lots of things and Obama is doing some really nasty shite themselves, not everything can be blamed on "the administration".

The meaningful question is: now that this has come to light and is being reported in the media, now that the President can no longer claim ignorance, what is he going to do about it? The likely answer: absolutely nothing. That can and should be blamed on his administration.

Re:Okay, And?

[Lawrence_Bird]

slightly off-topic, but what Obama did with regards DOMA was about as huge a grab on executive power as you can get. He's basically decided that he shall be King and decide which laws he likes to enforce and which he does not. We are now at the point that whatever political party comes to power will simply non-enforce laws with which they disagree. Even if Obama had legit concerns over this law (or any other) it is SCOTUS, not President, who determines the constitutionality.

Re:Okay, And?

[Jane Q. Public]

"When you get so many layers of beuacracy those in charge really aren't in charge, because they aren't told everything."

Doesn't matter. He said he was going to make the situation better, and he hasn't. As far as I know he hasn't even tried, and frankly I think that is on purpose.

Why? Because he promised to back off on surveillance of civilians, too, but those programs have actually increased since he took office. The Obama administration has backed not just extending, but worsening provisions of the Patriot Act, for example.

He just doesn't do what he says. Period. He has broken nearly every promise he made, and has continued to do so.

If all the things he said he would do -- but actually did the opposite when it all came down to it -- are beyond his control, then there isn't much point in having a President at all.

Re:Okay, And?

[peragrin]

Name one president who kept every promise, or even most of them?

you can't because there are none.

what does that say about our government?

Re:Okay, And?

[causality]

slightly off-topic, but what Obama did with regards DOMA was about as huge a grab on executive power as you can get. He's basically decided that he shall be King and decide which laws he likes to enforce and which he does not. We are now at the point that whatever political party comes to power will simply non-enforce laws with which they disagree. Even if Obama had legit concerns over this law (or any other) it is SCOTUS, not President, who determines the constitutionality.

I predict that anyone with media presence who seriously raises that question will be portrayed in the rest of the media as some kind of irrational lunatic. Just like the smear job that was performed against those who wanted to know if this man who was completely unknown prior to suddenly becoming President and spent a great deal of his childhood in Kenya does, in fact, meet the Constitutional requirement of being a natural-born citizen.

These days you're some kind of nutter if you want to know whether your elected leaders are legitimate. A nice catchy word will be coined for you, like "Birther", and by repeated association it will come to mean something like "devil". I say we should not have such unresolved questions about the holder of our highest office, and if someone wishes to have maximum privacy that person can always choose not to become a public figure with a great deal of political power. But what do we actually get? Excuses, obstruction, a "certificate of live birth" that means next to nothing, and a great deal of effort to make sure that attempts to resolve what should have been a simple and straightforward matter are widely ridiculed.

It's a group application of a similar strategy to the one that was used on Joe the Plumber, if you remember him. He asked the President some decently tough, decidedly non-scripted questions. Next thing you know, the media starts trying to dig up dirt on him and leaves no stone unturned in an effort to make him look bad. It's a classic smear job. The message there is quite clear: sit down and shut up, applaud when we tell you to, and enjoy the pep rally, or we will invade your privacy and air your dirty laundry. It's disgusting.

Re:Okay, And?

[davecb]

The person who wrote the snarky comment wasn't the president, and I'm not the president, so suggesting he find an easier job is a bit off-topic.

He (or she, some year or other) is legally responsible for everything his minions do, but unless he's omniscient and has infinite time, cannot be to blame for everything. Thus conscious, stated policies of president-and-administration X are legitimate targets for personal criticisms, but holdovers from X-1 are not.

And people are more often ignorant than stupid...

--dave

Re:Okay, And?

[davecb]

Then we probably agree that the commentator should have identified the culprit, rather than being lazy and blaming the administration of the week.

--dave

Re:Okay, And?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey man, how come you didn't unleash that insightful comment back when the Justice Dept started all that wiretapping business under Bush?

Re:Okay, And?

[davecb]

Hadn't thought of it. --dave

Re:Okay, And?

[sjames]

Blame travels up the chain of command. The pervasive abuses carried out by DOJ, FBI, and others year after year are not the result of a bunch of peons/scapegoats acting alone, it's them reacting to the guidance of their supervisors. Their supervisors, in turn, react to the guidance of their superiors all the way up to the president.

That doesn't mean that each and every individual action is the President's personal responsibility, but it does mean that the pattern of behavior is his responsibility.

Re:Okay, And?

[causality]

The person who wrote the snarky comment wasn't the president, and I'm not the president, so suggesting he find an easier job is a bit off-topic.

I was already quite confident that you're not Barack H. Obama. That's why it wasn't a literal suggestion. It was a way of making a point. The point is that anyone who wants to be President is going to have the entire executive branch at his or her disposal if they are elected. If that is too much for them, if it is beyond their leadership abilities, then there are better and more fit candidates available. I'll never understand why people are so eager to give Obama a pass on this when the inability to get your subordinates on board with your intentions is a very bad trait for a President.

He (or she, some year or other) is legally responsible for everything his minions do, but unless he's omniscient and has infinite time, cannot be to blame for everything.

(emphasis added)

You don't understand why that statement contradicts itself, do you?

Also, do tell me why he would need infinite time? The President interacts with members of his Cabinet to get these things done. In case you don't know, that's a small roomful of people. Each person in the Cabinet is the head of an executive branch department. All Obama would need to do is announce to his Cabinet "from now on, this is how we're going to operate". It would be up to each department head to either get it done or be replaced by someone who can. Have you never seen how any large institution is managed? By your logic no CEO could ever be expected to have any control over a company. You're clutching at straws here.

Thus conscious, stated policies of president-and-administration X are legitimate targets for personal criticisms, but holdovers from X-1 are not.

Why not? At nothing more than a whim Obama can remove and replace those holdovers. His request is all it would take. In light of the very well-established fact that the President commands the executive branch, there can only be two possibilities: he doesn't change those "holdovers" because he approves of them, or, he would disapprove of them and would change them except that he's unaware of their existence because he's incompetent.

Bear in mind that his entire platform was "change". Specifically, he called it "change you can believe in". What part of retaining holdovers who still want to do things the way the old administration did things constitutes "change", exactly? One of the biggest reasons Obama was elected is because people were getting tired of the police-state bullshit Bush was doing. This is more of the same, only now it's not under Bush's watch. That means we can add hypocrisy to everything else I have already explained.

Look, if you think no one should ever call out Obama's failures because he's such a great guy, so charismatic, because you like him so much, etc., that's fine, but call it the emotional argument that it is and acknowledge that you are disregarding the facts of the matter. If you want to be consistent, you can also view Bush's actions through such rose-tinted "but he couldn't possibly have done any better" glasses, but it's understandable if that is too much to ask since he's far less charismatic. That charisma is more important than a hard look at the facts of the matter, isn't it? If you're likable you get away with murder. If you're not, people question your every step. How typical.

And people are more often ignorant than stupid...

Ignorance alone isn't so bad. Ignorance that does not recognize itself is a great definition of naivete. When people are ignorant about a thing and proceed as though they were not ignorant about that thing, then they are being stupid. For example, I am quite ignorant about neurosurgery, and that's okay because I won't be operating on anyone's brain. It

Re:Okay, And?

[causality]

Name one president who kept every promise, or even most of them?

you can't because there are none.

what does that say about our government?

That it's the kind of government a bunch of fat, stupid, shallow, naive, emotionally childish busybodies have made for themselves.

You may think that's malicious. When it's not what anyone would ever want to hear, the truth can seem that way.

Re:Okay, And?

[stonewallred]

One of these days, people might wake up and see that all politicians are bad, not just the ones of the other party.

They are all bought, paid for and owned by those people/organizations/companies that are rich.

They serve at their owners' pleasure, and do their owners' bidding.

And no, I am not a anti-corporation, anti-rich, or any other type.

I am just a simple realist.

Re:Okay, And?

[dragonturtle69]

One problem, with precedent, is what if the executive branch declines to enforce the law, especially if the majority gain from the law not being enforced?

I am not comparing Obama with Jackson, but just using a historical event to illustrate a weakness in our checks and balances. Look up Indian Removal Act or Worcester vs. Georgia. My favorite quote from that bit of history:

John Marshall has made his decision; let him enforce it now if he can. - Andrew Jackson

.

Remember too, that legal != just, further muddying the water.

Re:Okay, And?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like the smear job that was performed against those who wanted to know if this man who was completely unknown prior to suddenly becoming President and spent a great deal of his childhood in Kenya does, in fact, meet the Constitutional requirement of being a natural-born citizen.

Dude, you are smearing yourself. If you can't tell the difference between Indonesia and Kenya - a country Obama never saw before his 25th birthday - you can't expect anyone to take you seriously.

It's a group application of a similar strategy to the one that was used on Joe the Plumber, if you remember him. He asked the President some decently tough, decidedly non-scripted questions. Next thing you know, the media starts trying to dig up dirt on him and leaves no stone unturned in an effort to make him look bad

Gee, as I remember it the GOP adopted him as a postertool and THAT is what caused anyone to give a damn about his background. Funny how he now thinks McCain and Palin used him for their own purposes. Surprised it took him so long to figure it out.

Just because you see conspiracy doesn't mean there is one, chances are the problem is you just don't have enough information.

Re:Okay, And?

[Nimey]

Are you a birther?

Re:Okay, And?

[Grishnakh]

I'm not sure I buy this.

When Bush did this stuff, no one could say they were surprised. Whatever you might say about the Republicans, you can't say they're deceitful. They're completely blatant and open about their motives and methods. The Democrats are worse, because they try to convince you that they're for "hope and change", that they're completely the opposite of the "evil Republicans", but when they're in power, they do the exact same thing. The Democrats are deceitful liars, and con artists.

When you vote for Republicans, at least you know that you're voting for people who will destroy the environment, quash your personal liberties, persecute you if you're a homosexual, etc. The Democrats, however, campaign on promises that they'll change these things, but instead, when they're in power, they destroy the environment (check out Ken Salazar's actions; he's a big proponent of shooting wolves from helicopters just like Sarah Palin), quash your personal liberties (TSA's Enhanced Groping Procedures came out under Obama), and persecute you if you're a homosexual (Obama directed his DOJ to defend the DOMA in courts).

At least the Democrat voters can genuinely claim they were duped.

Re:Okay, And?

[Grishnakh]

Great post; I wish I had mod points.

It amazes and galls me how Obama supporters continue to defend him, even though he's completely proven himself to be "Bush lite". I guess when someone makes an emotional investment in something, they feel they have to defend it no matter what to prove that they weren't stupid and hoodwinked.

I'd really like to see the Democratic voters grow a brain next year and nominate someone else for Obama's position, but I have no faith it'll happen. The voters in this country are unbelievably stupid, and I think we'll see a race between Obama (who will move even farther to the right), and Palin.

Re:Okay, And?

[Grishnakh]

I hate to break it to you, but this is nothing new. The Supreme Court ruled in the mid 1800s that the Indians could not be forcibly relocated. President Andrew Jackson famously said "[Supreme Count Chief Justice] has made his ruling, so now let him enforce it.", and proceeded to carry out the infamous Trail of Tears where thousands of Indians were walked to death. What ever happened to Jackson for this? Nothing. This was over 150 years ago now.

This has always been a problem with the US's system of government, and probably shows why other countries' Parliamentary governments are superior. We'd probably be better off if we abandoned our system and went with what most of the rest of the world is using.

Re:Okay, And?

[AlamedaStone]

persecute you if you're a homosexual (Obama directed his DOJ to defend the DOMA in courts)

What? Keep up with the news, my friend.

http://www.wggb.com/Global/story.asp?S=14137011

He may not be as different as we'd like, maybe not by a long shot, but I assure you, it's still better than the other guys.

Re:Okay, And?

[SvnLyrBrto]

Yeah. And do you believe that he's changed his policy on DADT and DOMA now out of principle, or politics? My money is on the latter. It's getting close to election time, and getting rid of DADT and DOMA now serves two important goals for him: 1) It creates a wedge between the hardcore social conservatives and the fiscal types; potentially diluting the power of the GOP on election day. 2) It acknowledges and exploits the fact that the gay community tends to be both politically active, and more affluent than the average. That means votes and campaign contributions.

If this move were truly out of principle and not just politics; it'd have happened on day one of the new administration. Instead; on day one, Obama was endorsing Rick Warren, and his message of hate and discrimination against gays, by having him as the opening act of his inauguration.

Re:Okay, And?

[AlamedaStone]

You're kidding me, right? Did I make any assertion about his motivation?

H E

C H A N G E D

I T

Do I care *why* he did? I do not, in fact, give a damn.

Re:Okay, And?

[Aeternitas827]

Thus conscious, stated policies of president-and-administration X are legitimate targets for personal criticisms, but holdovers from X-1 are not.

Why not? At nothing more than a whim Obama can remove and replace those holdovers. His request is all it would take. In light of the very well-established fact that the President commands the executive branch, there can only be two possibilities: he doesn't change those "holdovers" because he approves of them, or, he would disapprove of them and would change them except that he's unaware of their existence because he's incompetent.

It actually takes a little more than a whim. Cabinet members, while appointed by the President, must be confirmed by the Senate; at the time Obama was elected, the Dems did have a majority in the Senate (and, on party lines, enough to get a confirmation through), but it was not filibuster proof--meaning, if the GOP didn't like the person appointed, they can block the vote, effectively preventing appointment of someone who would possibly undermine any of the prior administration's efforts, where they are/were deemed critical points. I don't recall for certain if this came to pass, but in either case, the possibility of such did exist, and may have impacted decisions on who to appoint to these jobs. And while the President may dismiss a member of the Cabinet if the message they present to their subordinates diverges from his will, if he wants to appoint someone who will go with him 100%, he's back in the same position unless his party has a filibuster-proof Senate majority (and can be certain that all of his party will go along with him).

In short, where checks on the Executive exist insofar as Executive appointments, the President has to have at least 51 people on his side in the Senate to even try and get done what he wants; but unless he has 60, he's going to have to compromise and deal with a bit of insubordination or 'mixed-messages' being delivered down the chain.

Re:Okay, And?

[FatLittleMonkey]

I'm not sure I buy this. When Bush did this stuff, no one could say they were surprised. Whatever you might say about the Republicans, you can't say they're deceitful. They're completely blatant and open about their motives and methods. The Democrats are worse ... they do the exact same thing.

It feels that way to you, because you consider Republicans evil, so you expect them to act evil. Don't forget, Bush campaigned as a "Compassionate Conservative", small government advocate, and staunch protector of the US Constitution.

If you had believed and voted for him, you'd have been duped.

(Of course, I'm not entirely sure why the people who voted for Obama's hope'n'change are now voting Republican. How do they think that will work?)

Re:Okay, And?

[FatLittleMonkey]

...Joe the Plumber, if you remember him. He asked the President some decently tough, decidedly non-scripted questions. Next thing you know, the media starts trying to dig up dirt on him and leaves no stone unturned in an effort to make him look bad

Gee, as I remember it the GOP adopted him as a postertool and THAT is what caused anyone to give a damn about his background.

Also, in the original encounter, Obama actually stopped and tried to explain his business policies - in detail, not just sloganeering. "Joe" wasn't treated like a partisan heckler. I found that interesting. By contrast, the Republicans just treated him as a mascot to be shown at events.

Re:Okay, And?

[FatLittleMonkey]

One of these days, people might wake up and see that all politicians are bad, not just the ones of the other party. ... I am just a simple realist.

That's not very realistic, though. The question is are they all exactly equally bad. If not, if there's any variation, then you have something to work with. Select against the worst, and no matter how bad the pool is to begin with, it will slowly work towards what you consider "good".

The problem is the inability of the voters to consistently select for desired properties. Try advocating for a law requiring attendance at voting stations for all registered voters during every election. That alone should help soften the extremes.

Re:Okay, And?

[Anonymous Coward]

In a word: yes. He has. The U.S. has three branches of government. The President has no direct control over the legislative and judicial branches. However, the President is the undisputed leader of the executive branch. Every other member of the executive branch is his subordinate. If the head of an executive department will not comply with the President's wishes, the President can fire that person and replace them with someone else.

For example, Obama disagrees with what is called the "Defense of Marriage Act". Eric Holder is the Attorney General, that is, Holder is the head of the Department of Justice. The DoJ is part of the executive branch. Obama has directly instructed Holder to refuse to enforce this particular law. Holder has three choices in the matter: 1) comply with Obama's order, 2) refuse to comply and be fired and replaced, or 3) resign and be replaced. (Incidentally, this is an attack against the concept of rule of law -- the way we are supposed to deal with laws we don't like is to get them changed, not to selectively enforce them, but I digress).

That is quite the ironic pair of paragraphs to have next to each other. This is precisely why the branches of the US government are separate, so that if the Legislative branch of the government passes a bad law, the Executive branch can refuse to enforce it.

As far as rule of law goes, the time would be far better spent getting rid of the ancient laws that are never enforced, and simplifying the existing laws. Every time they go searching for something to charge someone with, they find some obscure, never enforced law; those are far more damaging to the rule of law than ones that the President has explicitly told the Justice Department not to enforce. The other half is attempting to cover every single contingency that comes up isn't worthwhile. You have to let judges and juries do their job and exercise judgment, sometimes this means a guilty person will go free.

Re:Okay, And?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't glean any news from this?

The news to me is that even though he may or may not have a phony birth certificate he is most certainly an outed Scientologist.
Behaviour is a dead givaway. I shouldn't be surprised that the whole inner core of the Democrats turn out to be a front for Sea Org.

          Just gotta read between the lines, cause newsclowns don't give any ACTUAL facts unless it's by accident.

Re:Okay, And?

[budgenator]

Because if he changed it merely to get his ticket punched, it'll whither on the vine after the next election.

Re:Okay, And?

[TheRaven64]

Not when you're talking about the US President. At least, not according to Truman. The President's job is to be personally responsible for the actions of the executive branch. Fault and responsibility are not the same thing in this case, but the fault is still there, even if it's passive (e.g. not putting procedures in place to avoid something happening), rather than active (e.g. ordering something).

Re:Okay, And?

[budgenator]

I don't think Palin is electable, the lefties revulsion of her mystifies me, but it's there. Additionally It seems Palin has more power as an outsider looking in than she'd ever have as an insider, I don't think she's suited to politics in our two and a half party system, she's more suited to a parliamentary system with numerous political parties. I think an Obama vs. Mitt Romney more likely.

Re:Okay, And?

[budgenator]

At that time I believe most of the rest of the world was either a Constitutional Monarchy or a Monarchy and there weren't many example of democratic style governments anywhere.

Re:Okay, And?

[budgenator]

Maybe requiring a quorum would make elections more interesting. Everyone says they want more voter participation, yet the tactics at least in local elections is to minimize participation so they can pack the polling sites with zealots that agree with them, and cause maximum inconvenience to the people that actually work and foot the bills. If they had to get 40% of the registered voters to at least show up at the polls, most of our elections would be void! I bet they would make it easier to absentee vote!

Re:Okay, And?

[jc42]

Whatever you might say about the Republicans, you can't say they're deceitful. They're completely blatant and open about their motives and methods. The Democrats are worse, because they try to convince you that they're for "hope and change", that they're completely the opposite of the "evil Republicans", but when they're in power, they do the exact same thing. The Democrats are deceitful liars, and con artists.

One of the best comments I've seen on this was in a Doonesbury cartoon a few years back. There were several panels of complaints about how hard it is to choose between the Republican and Democratic candidates, because they're both equally dishonest and corrupt. The last panel's punch line was "Yeah, but when the Democrats do it, they know it's wrong."

I've found that take on the subject useful in all sorts of "discussions" since then.

Of course, there's the question of how many people would prefer a leader with no morals or ethics to one who has them but has the strength of character (;-) to ignore them.

Re:Okay, And?

[Grishnakh]

That's mostly true, but even back then England had a Parliament, though it shared power with the monarch. The Founders tried to make a system with many checks and balances to avoid the problems created by having someone with too much power, but IMO they failed. The President position still has too much power, and worse, it's directly elected by the people (as opposed to the Prime Minister positions in Parliamentary governments, which are elected or appointed from their parliament. The President is supposed to just execute the laws that Congress passes, but as we've seen since the 1800s, that doesn't really happen, he executes laws he agrees with, or makes up new ones on the spot ("Signing Statements"). This is basically what people want too, because the People put far more energy and effort into the Presidential election than any other, so they really do expect him to act much like a monarch.

I think we should just dump the Constitution altogether at this point, and create a new one that copies other countries' systems of government. We should keep the Bill of Rights however, as that's IMO the most important, and also the most successful part of it.

Re:Okay, And?

[budgenator]

Seriously if a former CIA operative and a New York Times investigative reporter get snagged up by something as mundane as telephone and credit card records, then not only do they deserve to get ass-raped hard, fast and dry, but so do the people who train them! Don't we expect more from our spooks? They should have learned not to do that from watching 3 weeks of CSI and Burn Notice.

Re:Okay, And?

[snowgirl]

Government employees leaking information is still a federal criminal offense. From TFS, it doesn't appear like his administration did anything outside of standard police investigation to locate a suspected leak.

This rhetoric of "will do almost anything" is entirely ridiculous... when he starts TORTURING people for information, and confessions, then you can start telling me that he will "do almost anything", until then, it looks like he's willing to use proper due process to accomplish a justifiable goal.

"But it's not the transparency he promised us! *whine whine whine*" Look, I know you're upset that he hasn't been as transparent as you would like, and I would agree in some respects. He has however been perhaps one of the most transparent administrations in modern history. If you're complaining about him not being entirely and wholly transparent, wtf? He can't do that. There is still sensitive government information that we would like to keep close to the chest... it's just the way things go.

Obama is not being some megalomaniac dictator with this action, and he's not being against transparency... he simply wants to control at least some information flow.

Re:Okay, And?

[FatLittleMonkey]

Bit late to reply. Sorry. Hopefully you have email notification...

If they had to get 40% of the registered voters to at least show up at the polls, most of our elections would be void!

I'm in Australia. From memory, the quorum is two thirds for state and federal elections. If more than one third of voters either stay at home, or spoil their ballots, the result is void and a new bi-election is held in that seat (district) with a new round of candidates.

In reality, thanks to compulsory voting (which in practice only means mandatory attendance), turnout never falls below 90%. The penalty is only $50, and it's apparently not hard to get out of. But it works.

Since some states in the US are moving to distribute their electoral college votes according to district results (rather than en mass), there may be a willingness to look at other options too, such as quorum or mandatory attendance.

Re:Okay, And?

[tbannist]

Actually I think you may have it reversed. I think Obama's tepid defense of those policies was politics over principles. I think Obama may have abandoned those policies as it's now clear that he gains nothing from defending them. You do have to remember that Obama is a centrist politician who believes in bridging people's differences and bringing about consensus. He's not doing very well at that because he fails to recognize that the Republicans have the opposite goal. They intend to get elected by creating divisions and exploiting them.

Re:Okay, And?

[tbannist]

Maybe so, but that's still better than what the Republicans would do.

Re:Okay, And?

[tbannist]

Of course, sometimes people who are portrayed in the media as irrational lunatics are just that. As I understand, Obama's campaign released a scanned copy of his birth certificate in June 2008. Bush's eligibility should have been more questionable since there was documented evidence that he should have been dishonorably discharged for dereliction of duty. Hell, even McCain wasn't born in the United States (but he's a natural-born citizen because both his parents were).

Snopes
Politifact

You might be forgiven for asking those questions in 2008, but now, you're just a desperate lunatic clinging to your own delusions.

Re:Okay, And?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Just like the smear job that was performed against those who wanted to know if this man who was completely unknown prior to suddenly becoming President and spent a great deal of his childhood in Kenya

Man it is bizarre that you would make the exact same egregiously ignorant error as Huckabee, two days before he did.
Is this a meme on a bunch of nutter websites that Huckabee thinks he can adopt to grab more votes?

Huckabee Thinks Obama 'Grew Up' in Kenya

Tor, encryption, etc.

[betterunixthanunix]

...journalists should learn about Tor, email encryption, steganography, and other privacy protecting technologies. It is unfortunate, but if journalists wish to protect their sources, these are the lengths they will have to go to (if not now, then in the near future).

Re:Tor, encryption, etc.

[Nerdfest]

... you just gave me a great idea for a business. It's getting to the point where those services are *required* by journalists and others.

Re:Tor, encryption, etc.

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

...journalists should learn about Tor, email encryption, steganography, and other privacy protecting technologies.

They should also be using their "bully pulpits" to argue against the ongoing centralisation of databases. If our society weren't so enthused with the centralized collection of as much data as possible about its citizens, these sorts of trawling expeditions would be much more difficult to pull off.

We need policies and laws that restrict such databases to collecting and maintaining records to the minimum required for their primary purpose only. For example, call records that go back at least 6 years are completely unnecessary for billing purposes - 6 months, maybe a year at tops, should be the limit.

Re:Tor, encryption, etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

Politicians should be using the bully pulpit, not journalist. Journalist should be reporting news, nothing more. Not intentionally influencing opinion and policy, not telling their views, just reporting news.

Re:Tor, encryption, etc.

[dragonturtle69]

We also need to figure out how, as a wired civilization (buy a newspaper, why when I can get infotainment for free?), we will support journalists' organizations. We need someone to watch the watchers.

Re:Tor, encryption, etc.

[RockDoctor]

If our society weren't so enthused with the centralized collection of as much data as possible about its citizens,

"our"? - speak for yourself, probably-American!

"society"? - are you sure it's an across the whole of society problem, or largely confined to one sector of society?

Most (not all, but most) of the drive and support for such programmes seems to come from a relatively small range of business and governmental bodies. That's not society as a whole, that's just a small number of (admittedly powerful) special interests.

We need policies and laws that restrict such databases to collecting and maintaining records to the minimum required for their primary purpose only.

Data Protection Act of 1980+something covers a lot of this terrain.

Re:Tor, encryption, etc.

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

"our"? - speak for yourself, probably-American!

Considering this a story about the freaking US government doing this to some of its citizens, what the hell country did you think I was talking about? Don't be a dumbass.

Most (not all, but most) of the drive and support for such programmes seems to come from a relatively small range of business and governmental bodies.

No, the drive comes from the companies themselves - they see immediate value to creating such databases for their primary purposes - billing, trouble-shooting, etc. But because storage is so cheap they figure why the hell not just keep the data around in case they can come up with some other uses for it. It is an extremely rare company that has a formal policy of culling old data from their records - the only contrary example that's widespread are email expiration policies in order to avoid discovery in case they get sued. But that's data about themselves, not about their customers.

Data Protection Act of 1980+something covers a lot of this terrain.

Much of which has been eroded in the name of the terrorism.

Re:Tor, encryption, etc.

[joeszilagyi]

Let's see how fast the government tries to nix or affect you negatively if you make a business model meant to stop them doing their oversight work on us.

Re:Tor, encryption, etc.

[FatLittleMonkey]

Tell me, Mr. Anderson... what good is a business... if you have no domain?

Obama's been in for 6 years?

[topham]

really? Now that IS news.

Re:Obama's been in for 6 years?

[Anonymous Coward]

It just feels that way to a lot of Conservatives.

Re:Obama's been in for 6 years?

[damn_registrars]

No, Obama hasn't been in for 6 years. However, we are in the start of the 11th year of the Bush Administration and their agenda.

Re:Obama's been in for 6 years?

[Mashiki]

That's odd. I seem to remember Bush getting railed all the time for just about anything, including gas prices in the US. Obama seems to be living the easy life, with no tough questions, or even worrying about world issues(not that there's a shortage). Personally to an outsider, who pays attention to US news, this all reeks of media whitewashing their favorite kid, because well he can do no wrong. Unlike that other guy, who ended up not being as bad as everyone thought.

Oh I'm sure people will be frothing at the mouth at that, but if you're so blinded by partisan ideology that you can't see it. You should be reviewing not only the news you watch, but how it's presented to you.

Re:Obama's been in for 6 years?

[Anonymous Coward]

You neglected parent's point. Obama is running things just as Bush did, he isn't dismantling his programs, his policies, anything.

Obama isn't getting tough questions because Bush never got tough questions. The media let him do as he please and hardly anyone bothered to complain. That's why we had the war, remember? Even though it all came down to one information source who was on the payroll of Bush and the Saudis, who incidentally are the same people that did 9/11.

Re:Obama's been in for 6 years?

[corbettw]

You sound like a racist, teabagging, Republican.

</sarcasm>

Just kidding, I think you're right on the money. But anytime I try to say something like that, that's invariably the response I get. Pretty infuriating.

Re:Obama's been in for 6 years?

[Anonymous Coward]

And the admin before that, and that, and that... Clinton was rumored to have a list of about 400 people that he kept a close eye on. And bush before him and Regan before him and not sure if Carter did, Ford was not as overt about it, Nixon was busted for it, LBJ, Kenedy, .... See a pattern?

This sort of crap has been going on for a LONG time. If you think this is bad look up
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover

These 2 things are synonymous with prying peoples lives open and ruining them for saying the wrong things. Do you think that just 'went away' at some point? No it has morphed over the years into different things.

The 'agenda' did not magically change during Bush. Obama on the day of the inauguration asked Bush for help, Bush wisely told him "This is all yours now you do not want me near it, it will damage anything you want to do". Bush knew the lay of the land. Mcain did not loose to Obama, Bush did.

Re:Obama's been in for 6 years?

[Anonymous Coward]

...whitewashing their favorite kid...

Kudos on being so not racist that it probably didn't even enter your mind that this was an ironic choice of words.

Re:Obama's been in for 6 years?

[Anonymous Coward]

I seem to remember Bush getting railed all the time for just about anything

You remember wrong. Nobody asked Bush any of the important or difficult questions, especially when they should have and it may have made a change. From the start, Bush got a free ride - and the Republican noise machine took care to drown any questions, and to paint all dissenters as un-American, traitors or worse.
 
Here are just a few examples (we could easily find hundreds more): Bush's whole budgeting was based on the projection that the economy will continue growing forever as it had during the Clinton years; however, when the economy tanked in 2000, nobody asked why he doesn't have a plan B, and why does he continue with his tax cuts. When he doubled the deficit, nobody asked him what he plans to do about it - Cheney even famously said "Deficits don't matter", and nobody challenged him. Nobody asked why it's a good idea to divert resources to Iraq instead of using them to get Osama and destroy Al-Quaeda when there was a chance. Nobody asked where the famous weapons of mass destruction are, nor did they ask why Bush and his cabinet pressured analysts, distorted facts and wilfully ignored all the information about the real situation in Iraq. Nobody asked him to resign when it was shown he had lied to America and the world about the WMDs, and he had pushed the country into the longest and probably the most expensive war it ever got into. Nobody asked why he's naming incompetent but loyal Republican cronies to handle the administration of the conquered countries, leading to the complete current mess America still pays for. Everybody on Slashdot is probably aware of the FISA court issues, but nobody asked Bush why is he breaking the laws of the nation and the constitution he'd sworn to uphold,
 
And it goes on, and on; what amazes me the most is that there still are people ready to defend him even after all the outrageous stuff he did.

Re:Obama's been in for 6 years?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you kidding? Bush did nothing but ignore the problems, when he did come up with a plan it only made things worse (boosting the economy by giving tax breaks to the rich through his "trickle down" system, what the fuck? Most of the people who work for corporate America haven't even seen the person who owns their company, why on earth would someone you've never met care about you in any way other than the legally binding minimum? Obama is at least trying to get things done while the republicans aren't even showing up to vote on the issues and they cast their votes by proxy so they don't even have to show up to vote in order to stop him from passing anything. How many solutions do you think Obama has proposed to fix some of the huge problems America is facing while the republicans vote no without even reading to the bill. They would rather ruin America just to make Obama look bad than see him succeed and fix the country.

Re:Obama's been in for 6 years?

[vrythmax]

I used to think Bush was a puppet of Chaney who was hell bent on taking our freedoms to destroy the terrorist threat. Now I wonder if Obama didn't open the big book of really secret shit and mutter "Holy Shit! Chaney was right!" and then start making new plans for protecting our country. Maybe its classified for a big scary reason? We don't tend to think that way because we have the luxury of worrying more about getting the latest iPhone, than being blown up while standing in line for job.

Re:Obama's been in for 6 years?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ha ha, hah ahahahahahahahaha... You are one of the greatest writers of fictional sarcasm and irony I have ever read.

Re:Obama's been in for 6 years?

[ooshna]

I think one reason he doesn't get a lot of backlash is the lack of quotable screw ups he comes off as more of a person that knows what he is talking about. Though he is still continuing Bush's BS and should be drug through the coals for it.

Re:Obama's been in for 6 years?

[Breathwork]

Interesting... I don't know a single "liberal" who likes Obama at this point. Almost every progressive person I talk to says Obama is a disgrace. From where I'm sitting here's his track record:

80% - Percent of Campaign Promises Broken
18% - Percent of Campaign Promises he attempted to fullfill knowing ahead of time they would not, to give the illusion he is "trying"
2% - Percent of Campaign Promises he has actually kept (usually the conservative ones with a few exceptions).

Re:Obama's been in for 6 years?

[budgenator]

While I've never studied this formally or informally, people like Bertram Russell had a founded what is called Analytic Philosophy. Now if you actually try any type of dimensional analysis on our political philosophy, you find that rather than having any 180 degree differences, the parties in power are a couple degrees off center; so none should be surprised that "parking on the left is now parking on the right"

Re:Obama's been in for 6 years?

[budgenator]

You would think that with Obama being a Senator, there wouldn't be any "big book of really secret shit and mutter "Holy Shit! Chaney was right!"" moments, maybe more of a "Wow it's really as bad as they said, I thought they were exaggerating" moment or a "Wow, I didn't know all of the details" moment. Didn't the "big book of really secret shit" go out of style with Truman?

Re:Obama's been in for 6 years?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's odd. I seem to remember Bush getting railed all the time for just about anything, including gas prices in the US. Obama seems to be living the easy life, with no tough questions, or even worrying about world issues(not that there's a shortage). Personally to an outsider, who pays attention to US news, this all reeks of media whitewashing their favorite kid, because well he can do no wrong. Unlike that other guy, who ended up not being as bad as everyone thought.

I don't know what you've been watching, but it sure as hell isn't what we're watching here in the US. Like him or hate him, he's been getting plenty of criticism and there's no argument about that.

Oh I'm sure people will be frothing at the mouth at that, but if you're so blinded by partisan ideology that you can't see it. You should be reviewing not only the news you watch, but how it's presented to you.

And as a Moderate Independent affiliated with no political party, I can safely say that you should take your own advice. You obviously have some kind of love affair for Bush, who was at least as bad as everyone thought. Christ, the Egypt revolution was barely 3 hours old and Fox was already bitching about what Obama hadn't done yet, on top of making dire predictions that whatever he was going to do would ruin Peace in the Middle East and bring society to Ruin.

Hardly surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama is letting Bradley Manning get tortured and as seen in the HBGary case, is encouraging businesses to destroy the lives of journalists to keep information from getting released.

Bush did the exact same things with Lindh and journalists who dug to deep into why we went to war.

As a life-long Democrat, I'm amazed to see that Obama is just another Bush in disguise.

Re:Hardly surprising

[Asclepius99]

It should be noted that at least in this case, TFA specifically says that they haven't commented yet on which administration, Obama or Bush, was the one that actually began the investigation.

Re:Hardly surprising

[Asclepius99]

I actually misread that, they're unsure which administration made the request for bank/credit records. The investigation has been going on for over 6 years, so this was originally a Bush administration case.

Re:Hardly surprising

[damn_registrars]

TFA specifically says that they haven't commented yet on which administration, Obama or Bush, was the one that actually began the investigation

Why would it matter? The two administrations have repeatedly made the same decisions at every opportunity thus far. We were led to believe that Obama was going to do things differently, instead what we see is that Obama is doing things exactly the same as Bush. Had Bush managed to steal a third term in office, we would have likely seen the exact same policies come to fruit that we've seen since Obama's inauguration in 2009.

Re:Hardly surprising

[SuricouRaven]

Almost exact. The parties agree to disagree on a few issues that are really of no importance, like gay marriage, in order to maintain the illusion that the vote matters.

Re:Hardly surprising

[monkyyy]

as a life-long 3rd party-crat, im not

the republican party is the rich u dont realize the peasant can revolt
the democratic party is the rich who knows they can

now which one do i prefer the idiots who only help themselves, or the reasonably capable who still only care for themselves but does it secretly and in moderation?

Re:Hardly surprising

[artor3]

They followed the rules, obtained subpoenas, and investigated a crime. This, of course, is exactly the same as secretly abducting and torturing people, because.... well, because Slashdot is full of hard-core libertarian-anarchists who would only be happy if the government was completely eradicated.

Re:Hardly surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

As a life-long Democrat, I'm amazed to see that Obama is just another Bush in disguise.

Are you serious? As a life-long democrat I would expect you to be quite used to this sort of thing.

Re:Hardly surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

So do you have a better approach to containing a suspect, who by all appearances is still intent on breaking the law? I suppose you could just continue to let him pass secrets, just the same way you could let a child molester continue to work in a school while the trial is ongoing. The big difference is that a child molester probably won't kill anyone, while Manning's intent is perfectly clear.

Re:Hardly surprising

[morcego]

Rule #1 of politics: You can replace the flies, but the shit will remain the same.

Re:Hardly surprising

[hedwards]

Obama is deeply disappointing on some issues, but he's hardly a second Bush. Or did I miss Bush deciding to push for comprehensive healthcare reform, banking regulation, ending DADT and stop defending DOMA? The President is hardly perfect, but claiming that he's a second Bush is just plain dishonest.

Re:Hardly surprising

[guruevi]

The only thing that the Obama administration did was delay a revolt that was about to happen by appeasing it's subjects with free healthcare promises and making you feel like you have rights by paying lip service to the basic rights of a minority group.

And it's not him personally, the whole government from local to federal is corrupt. Everywhere (look critically at your news sources) both dem's and rep's are pushing to limit your rights to and staging government takeovers of civil services (banks, car manufacturers, school districts, unions, press, religion...) all the while making the gap between them (the aristocracy) and us (the plebes) bigger.

Re:Hardly surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

There was a word missing from Obama's auto-cue. Change you can ONLY believe in...

Re:Hardly surprising

[AlamedaStone]

Almost exact. The parties agree to disagree on a few issues that are really of no importance, like gay marriage, in order to maintain the illusion that the vote matters.

Just because something is of no importance to you doesn't mean it isn't at the top of someone else's personal agenda. This is an excellent example, a classic civil rights issue. Unimportant? It sure doesn't seem that way to me.

Re:Hardly surprising

[budgenator]

On the cosmic scale of governmental issues, Gay Marriage is meaningless, why does or why should the government care one way or the other? It's all just manufactured drama to keep the theists and the atheists feeling important and distracted from issues of substance.

Re:Hardly surprising

[AlamedaStone]

How meta of you. I'd still like to be able to get married and have it recognized in other states. I'm not interested in your assessment of its importance.

They'll not detect the big leaks until too late

[EnergyScholar]

Because the big leaks will come from unauthorized entry. The US Gov't is very focussed on detecting leakers, but have they considered the possibility that their computer security might be inadequate to the threat they face? Perhaps the whistleblowers just add credibility as to where the leaks are coming from?

I'm a security professional, and I'm not at all confident that large institutions effectively guard their borders. For example, is does any organization have a security posture that can effectively block access by a quantum neural network AI based on topological quantum computing principles, should such a thing exist? Insider threats are real and serious, but, perhaps, they should also be looking elsewhere for their vulnerabilities?

I think its disgraceful, but not surprising, that governments attempt to find and punish whistleblowers. A person only becomes a whistleblower if there is egregiously bad stuff going on, in which case they are doing the morally right thing. This puts almost any organization trying to track down and punish whistleblowers as automatically in the wrong.

Re:They'll not detect the big leaks until too late

[Anonymous Coward]

A. History shows that you're wrong
B. We have an agency, half of which is devoted to protecting government networks from external threats
C. You're a pretty lousy security professional if you're unaware of A. and B.

Re:They'll not detect the big leaks until too late

[Anonymous Coward]

does any organization have a security posture that can effectively block access by a quantum neural network AI based on topological quantum computing principles?

Yes, I do. It can't be hacked by leprechauns, either.

Re:They'll not detect the big leaks until too late

[Jeremi]

For example, does any organization have a security posture that can effectively block access by a quantum neural network AI based on topological quantum computing principles, should such a thing exist?

No, they are appallingly unprepared for that possibility. What's worse, they also have absolutely no defenses against intruders who read the contents of classified hard drives via ESP, should such a thing exist. They should all be sacked for negligence.

Re:They'll not detect the big leaks until too late

[SuricouRaven]

D. Or they could just use lax security, then totally destroy the life of anyone stupid enough to exploit it until the hackers learn not to try.

Re:They'll not detect the big leaks until too late

[Jane Q. Public]

"This puts almost any organization trying to track down and punish whistleblowers as automatically in the wrong."

Mod parent up.

Uhm...

[Nailer235]

So the Justice Department used lawful means to obtain these records - records pertaining to an event that casts a shadow over the entire country - and we are supposed to be on her side for this one? I mean, it just seems we have warrants going out for all sorts of trivial stuff. Leaking government information, on the other hand, actually seems like something important that's worth investigating.

Re:Uhm...

[Asclepius99]

I have to agree with you here. This isn't about he DOJ bugging someone's phone or abducting them, they went to a judge and asked to get records which the article even indicates are a standard practice in criminal investigations. I don't see the big deal here, the CIA doesn't want people to publish books that include specific operations they've carried out against foreign nations, especially if it happened within recent memory (under Clinton, so at some point in the 90s).

Re:Uhm...

[Jane Q. Public]

"So the Justice Department used lawful means to obtain these records"

Were the means lawful? To subpoena the private records of someone who is not a criminal suspect? Remember that the journalist did not commit any crimes, and apparently was not even suspected of doing so. Yet they obtained years' worth of records on him.

Re:Uhm...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wether or not the means were actually lawful remains to be seen. However "lawful" and "morally acceptable" are two terms that are drifting more and more apart in their meanings. If a government would pass laws that makes murdering innocent bystanders for the sake of convenience legal, the act of killing would be lawful but by no means acceptable; except of course for those crazies who will always side with authority, no matter what.

Re:Uhm...

[Aeternitas827]

To play the Devil's Advocate here...while the journalist may not have committed crimes, did they have material contact with someone who did? If so, their records may have some relevance.

Ceasing the aforementioned Devil's Advocate role, might the request have been over-broad? Perhaps. Was it necessary? Likely not, in the structure presented. Was it within the letter of the law? Probably, and this is just an indication of which laws might need a little bit of narrowing.

They pulled records on a non-suspect

[mykos]

The summary says prosecutors obtained the suspect's records. But the title has it right; DoJ pulled bank and credit records on someone not suspected of a crime. If I were the news man, I'd demand to see the warrant.

Re:They pulled records on a non-suspect

[gnasher719]

The summary says prosecutors obtained the suspect's records. But the title has it right; DoJ pulled bank and credit records on someone not suspected of a crime. If I were the news man, I'd demand to see the warrant.

Not hundred percent sure how it works exactly, but I think only the suspect has protection of the law. If you are suspected of a crime, evidence of your crime is in my posession, and the police gets that evidence without a warrant, then my rights might be violated. So that evidence couldn't be used against me, but _you_ are not protected.

Re:They pulled records on a non-suspect

[Israfels]

Actually, as a military police officer, we have a saying shared by other police agencies, "Fruit of the poisonous tree". if the means in which the evidence is obtained is illegal, then the evidence cannot be used. The 4th Amendment protects every citizen, not just suspects. In fact, only suspects can be searched. Either by a warrant or a good faith search.

Re:They pulled records on a non-suspect

[jimbolauski]

The reporter did commit a crime he knowingly disseminated classified information, for whatever reason the DOJ has had a long standing tradition of not going after newspapers for committing this crime.

Re:They pulled records on a non-suspect

[Arker]

The reporter did commit a crime he knowingly disseminated classified information, for whatever reason the DOJ has had a long standing tradition of not going after newspapers for committing this crime.

Do some research. The reason they *never* file charges on this is because if they did it would be thrown out of court. We have something called the first amendment that trumps statute whenever the two conflict. You should also look up a guy named Daniel Ellsberg.

Re:They pulled records on a non-suspect

[sed quid in infernos]

Actually, as a military police officer, we have a saying shared by other police agencies, "Fruit of the poisonous tree". if the means in which the evidence is obtained is illegal, then the evidence cannot be used. The 4th Amendment protects every citizen, not just suspects. In fact, only suspects can be searched. Either by a warrant or a good faith search.

This is flat out not true, for two reasons. First, the constitution requires that there be probable cause (a very low evidentiary standard) that the search will uncover items or information useful as evidence of a crime. There is NO requirement that the person who is being searched (or whose belongings are being searched) be a suspect in that crime.

Second, a defendant has standing to object to the admission of evidence gathered in violation of the fourth amendment only if the evidence was gathered in violation of the defendant's fourth amendment rights. If a third party's fourth amendment right was violated, the defendant cannot object to the admission of that evidence. The third party has other remedies available to him. Note that this does not apply to evidence obtained via coercion of a third party - a different standard for asserting such objections applies.

Re:They pulled records on a non-suspect

[Jane Q. Public]

Actually, violation of "civil rights" is a crime and can be prosecuted as such.

Re:They pulled records on a non-suspect

[the eric conspiracy]

Doesn't matter in this case - nobody is claiming the evidence was obtained illegally, just the article is implying it. If you read the linked story you'll see the DOJ issued subpoenas for the information which presumably could have been challenged if they were thought to be invalid.

Re:They pulled records on a non-suspect

[Jane Q. Public]

Just to reinforce the other responder here: this is exactly why so many in government want to shut down WikiLeaks. Actually stealing classified information is illegal. But printing it is not: that is covered by the First Amendment.

And it should be! The right of the people to speak about what goes on behind closed government doors without fear of prosecution is essential to the fundamental freedom of speech. Without it, there would none.

Re:They pulled records on a non-suspect

[gamricstone]

According to Alderman v. US, 394 US 165 (1969)

1. Suppression of the product of a Fourth Amendment violation can be successfully urged only by those whose rights were violated by the search itself, and not those who are aggrieved solely by the introduction of damaging evidence. Thus, codefendants and coconspirators have no special standing, and cannot prevent the admission against them of information which has been obtained through electronic surveillance which is illegal against another. Pp. 394 U. S. 171-176.

So evidence obtained through an illegal S&S CAN be used against anyone except for those whom had their rights violated during the search (IE the home/business owners and no one else).

Re:They pulled records on a non-suspect

[HBI]

Ellsberg only avoided conviction and a long prison sentence as a result of government misconduct of a gross nature surrounding a break-in of his house.

He *should * have spent a half-century in jail or so.

Re:They pulled records on a non-suspect

[Lehk228]

unless the reporter had a security clearance no he did not commit a crime.

Re:They pulled records on a non-suspect

[rtb61]

However it can be used as the basis of a search warrant, to re-obtain that exact same evidence legally. So the original evidence can not be used but once it is re-obtained direct from the source legally it can. Corruption occurs when sufficient time is allowed so that the original sourced can be cleansed or deleted.

As to blaming a president for everything, that is the whole idiotic US worship or celebrity, of the leader doing everything and taking credit for everything and via PR=B$ shifting blame as often as possible.

How big is the entire US Federal administration how many hundreds of thousands of people are part of it. At the end of the day, the reality is when things go wrong and you shove it in the President's face via protests and political activism, then he is a lying deceitful asshat for doing nothing to 'remedy' the situation, especially when that situations contravenes any promises he made.

So you don't blame political leaders for buggering it up unless they directly buggered it up, you blame them for failing to fix it and for failing to punish those that buggered it up. However it must forced sufficiently into there focus of attention that action on it outweighs their focus on other actions they are required to carry out as part of their role.

Media should focus less on celebrity worship of following only the leader and more on those persons who are actually culpable for those failures. So in this case who did it, who actually ordered it and they can explain there actions in light of the commander in chiefs public declarations (public orders).

Re:They pulled records on a non-suspect

[Aeternitas827]

Ellsberg only avoided conviction and a long prison sentence as a result of government misconduct of a gross nature surrounding a break-in of his house.

He *should * have spent a half-century in jail or so.

And because of the government misconduct, we cannot truly be sure of what the outcome of the trial would have been, nor what the appeals process would have led to. Two days after Ellsberg's surrender, SCOTUS determined (6-3) that their publication of the documents "outweighed the government's claim to potential harm to national security."; this likely would have affected at the very least an appeal made by Ellsberg, if not the possibility of a conviction itself.

Re:They pulled records on a non-suspect

[budgenator]

Actually, as a military police officer, we have a saying shared by other police agencies, "Fruit of the poisonous tree". if the means in which the evidence is obtained is illegal, then the evidence cannot be used. The 4th Amendment protects every citizen, not just suspects. In fact, only suspects can be searched. Either by a warrant or a good faith search.

Well that's certainly part of the problem, in nature if you eat a poisonous fruit you get sick. If you are a bank robber, is having the stolen money taken away the punishment for your illegal activity? If you had busted the 4th amendment and I was your FLS, you'd expect some re-training in evidence collection such as police call in the PX parking lot and the parade field for a few weekends. I bet if every time a cop or a prosecutor got caught pushing the limits over the edge they lost a couple months of weekends to Habitat for Humanity our constitutional and civil rights would be better respected.

Re:They pulled records on a non-suspect

[HBI]

The fact that a panel chose to allow the publication of the data did not declassify it, an Executive Branch function. For instance and for clarification, DoD employees with a security clearance are not permitted to view Assange's leaked data. It is classified material and they have not been cleared for it. Notices went out upon its release to the DoD workforce. I'm avoiding saying the name of the site on purpose.

Therefore, the SCOTUS decision would have had little or no impact on Ellsberg's ultimate conviction - it hardly could have missed, he admitted the release of the data.

Re:They pulled records on a non-suspect

[Aeternitas827]

The fact that SCOTUS--not just an arbitrary panel--handed down a decision that the publication of the information was able to be published under the First Amendment, and thus the party publishing it could not be punished for it (directly indicating the paper--however, a defense could (and probably successfully) be mounted that Ellsberg provided the information for publication as part of his job duties, enabling him to take that same shield). This is a check on the Executive power. Any declassification that may have happened otherwise, you're right, would have nothing to do with Ellsberg.

The point you make with the data leaked by Assange and associates, and the directive given by DoD and other privileged personnel, is irrelevant here; that directive by its nature would only cover employees/contractors with such privileges. Also, being that it is an action taken by an Executive agency, should an individual choose to challenge it in court, it could be struck down (again, the Judiciary are charged with balancing against the Constitution and its Amendments when reviewing both Legislative and Executive acts and actions--see also, Don't Ask, Don't Tell), again under the First Amendment (this time, though, the argument would be Freedom of Association--this order would seem to prevent these folks from otherwise participating in online communities that would have other matters to discuss).

Re:They pulled records on a non-suspect

[HBI]

Ellsberg surreptitiously copied 7000 pages of stuff and started privately disseminating it to people who generally were not cleared. This started a long time before the issue came before the court. It would be hard to make any kind of argument that his employment with the RAND corporation (by which means he obtained access to the material) somehow entitled him to do this.

In addition, you may be unaware of the contract that those who obtain security clearances sign with the government.

http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/520001ph1.pdf

The key point is that the exclusion against dissemination never expires. Only the declassification of the material permits its dissemination.

Re:Good Fucking Grief

[gmuslera]

So is better that be the government that do the law breaking thing instead of citizens or foreigners? Shouldnt it give the example, instead of doing the same or worse?

Re:Good Fucking Grief

[hduff]

What's next? Slashdotters complain that the US Gov doesn't nothing to locate leaks because they are incompetent? Can't have it both ways...

Of course we can -- it's Slashdot!

Re:Good Fucking Grief

[Archangel Michael]

You're wrong.

Leaking GWB gov secrets is good

Leaking BHO gov secrets is bad

Or Visa Versa. People want it both was all the time.

Re:Good Fucking Grief

[davester666]

No, because the terrorists, criminals and child pornographers win unless we stoop to their level.

Re:Good Fucking Grief

[Anonymous Coward]

What bothers me most about that quote is that, typically, a Democratic administration will be far more open than a Republican administration. So either the quote is specious, or Lucy Dalgrish doesn't understand the lesser of two evils: "this one's not good enough... so we'd rather have the worst than put up with it"
::facepalm::

Re:Good Fucking Grief

[Sulphur]

What's next? Slashdotters complain that the US Gov doesn't nothing to locate leaks because they are incompetent? Can't have it both ways...

Of course we can -- it's Slashdot!

Do you mean Quantum Slashdot?

LOLZ

[Anonymous Coward]

It took you guys this long to figure out that the guy who did nothing to repeal the PATRIOT Act when he had free reign is evil? Jesus fuck. Let's face facts, anything that the government does today to somehow promote good will to us peasants has some ulterior motive and we're paying for it somehow.

Open your eyes and see that the system is broken and neither the elephant or the jackass are going to fix it. Stop being worried about looking like a fucktard for admitting that your guy, whichever side he is on, is an asshole and let's get on with getting on. If your voting for the winner is a bigger deal to you than voting for someone who's going to try to fix things then I guess you'll always be on the losing end of the deal.

Re:LOLZ

[Anonymous Coward]

Repeal the Patriot act? Hell, on Friday he signed a three-month extension of it.

Re:LOLZ

[Jeremi]

It took you guys this long to figure out that the guy who did nothing to repeal the PATRIOT Act when he had free reign is evil?

"Free reign"? Really? There seems to be this delusion that the USA is a dictatorship, where the President can simply enact or repeal any law he desires.

Contrast that with reality -- it is Congress that makes the laws, and the President can, at best, ask them to make laws he likes, or veto newly passed laws that he doesn't like.

Go ahead and fault Obama for not trying harder and twisting more arms, if you like, but let's not pretend he's Superman, or that Congress is a rubber stamp. The truth is that Congress deserves at least as much of the blame as the Obama Administration, and arguably the majority of it.

Re:LOLZ

[0123456]

There seems to be this delusion that the USA is a dictatorship, where the President can simply enact or repeal any law he desires.

Contrast that with reality -- it is Congress that makes the laws, and the President can, at best, ask them to make laws he likes, or veto newly passed laws that he doesn't like.

Indeed. And Obama was elected as a Democrat President with a Democrat Congress... you think he couldn't have got these laws repealed if he really wanted to?

Re:LOLZ

[hedwards]

That's bullshit and you know it. He had a veto proof majority in the Senate for what less than a month? And not if you recognize that the blue dog coalition is every bit as ready to sell us out for national security as the opposing party is.

I realize this may come as a shock, but there's significantly less party unity with the Democrats than there is with the Republicans.

Re:LOLZ

[Anonymous Coward]

The truth is that Congress deserves at least as much of the blame as the Obama Administration, and arguably the majority of it.

Funny, it seemed to be the exact opposite sentiment prior to 2008. Any invasion of privacy was immediately decried as evil-doing by Bush and Bush alone. But now that the Democrats have "their man" at the top, it switches to "No! Congress is to blame!"

Of course I expect nothing different from the same people who wanted to paint Bush as the most evil man alive while at the same time talking about how much of an idiot he was. If he's an idiot, how can he be an evil mastermind? If he's an evil mastermind, how can he be an idiot?

I'll stick with "he was the most powerful idiot in the world." And we reversed things in 2008. Obama is far from stupid, but he's proving to be just as evil as the previous idiot. Net result? No real "Change"...

Re:LOLZ

[pushing-robot]

The president can block the passage of legislation (though it will hurt his reputation with congress). The president can not, of his own volition, repeal legislation.

Therefore it is perfectly reasonable to blame one president who passed laws, but not another president who failed to repeal them.

Re:LOLZ

[Aeternitas827]

Indeed. And Obama was elected as a Democrat President with a Democrat Congress... you think he couldn't have got these laws repealed if he really wanted to?

It took a while to get his filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. In the meantime, to get anything passed, compromise to some degree with the GOP was a necessity. Argue politics as much as you want, the mathematics of a set number of Senators and the rules of the Senate win every time.

As far as 'repealed' goes, it's rare that such ever truly happens. Unpopular laws get watered down by the opposing majority, but their complete undoing would require far too many like-minded, party-oriented people to be a realistic possibility. It's the sad result of a two-party system; each side has its own goals, its own zealots and its own moderates, and mixed up legislation is the result.

Re:LOLZ

[Jeremi]

Funny, it seemed to be the exact opposite sentiment prior to 2008. Any invasion of privacy was immediately decried as evil-doing by Bush and Bush alone. But now that the Democrats have "their man" at the top, it switches to "No! Congress is to blame!"

The thing is, a lot of the things the Bush Administration was doing (warrantless wiretaps, kidnapping, torture) were (and are) completely illegal. So yes, Bush gets the blame when his minions break the law. That's a very different situation from what Obama is being criticized for above -- Obama is being criticized for not repealing the Patriot Act. But it's not the President's job to pass or repeal legislation, it's Congress's job to do that.

Correction

[damn_registrars]

Should read

"This tells us the Obama Administration will do everything that the Bush Administration did"

And that applies to a lot more than just matters of "national security".

Re:Correction

[Jeremi]

"This tells us the Obama Administration will do everything that the Bush Administration did"

I, for one, am looking forward to next year's invasion of some annoying-yet-irrelevent country. Where will we fail to find the WMDs this time?

Re:Correction

[hedwards]

I suggest Jamaica or perhaps Tahiti, plenty of beaches and sun.

Re:Correction

[Anonymous Coward]

Iran, it is at least trying to enrich uranium, just needs a bit of hype and away you go (although the locals might get there first).

Re:Correction

[Anonymous Coward]

meh, seems unlikely. Obama is a reader, not a leader. Revolution in Egypt? Revolution in Libya? He waits until the rest of the world weighs in before saying anything, and when he does say something (a week later), he doesn't actually say anything.

Re:Correction

[Anonymous Coward]

"This tells us the Obama Administration will do everything that the Bush Administration did"

I, for one, am looking forward to next year's invasion of some annoying-yet-irrelevent country. Where will we fail to find the WMDs this time?

Some where people desperately need liberation, that has no oil or gas, and isn't in Africa??

Isn't there a joke about bear hunting, buggery, and an analogy of the history of USA and world peace?

Re:Correction

[Anonymous Coward]

So... it's Bush's fault?

Re:Correction

[grcumb]

I suggest Jamaica or perhaps Tahiti, plenty of beaches and sun.

Well, Tahiti, the nation that gave the world the coconut bra, is full of French people, a society that knowingly, deliberately aided and abetted Jerry Lewis' decades-long spree of crimes against comedy....

Lock and load, boys. IT'S WOOOOOAAAAARRRRRR!

Re:Correction

[gambino21]

Not exactly. Obama seems to be kicking it up a notch in the war against whistle-blowers.

That subpoena had originally been served but was then abandoned by the Bush DOJ, but its revitalization by the Obama administration was but one of many steps taken to dramatically expand the war on whistleblowers being waged by the current President

Re:Correction

[Solandri]

"This tells us the Obama Administration will do everything that the Bush Administration did"

Which leads to two possible conclusions, neither of which is going to sit well with most of the folks reading here:

A. Republicans and Democrats are just two faces of the same coin. They talk about being for and against different things, but it's all just a ploy to get people to vote for them. Underneath it all they are more concerned about keeping themselves (and this country) in power.

or

B. There are secret reasons why Bush did the unpopular things he's criticized for. Reasons so compelling that once Obama learned what they were, he changed his tune and ended up making the same decisions as Bush.

Re:Correction

[Aeternitas827]

Jamaica will only have the Atomic Bong, and peace sh... You want some potato chips, mon?

Re:Correction

[Anonymous Coward]

C. The president is just one man plus his cabinet against a million civil servants who would much rather keep doing whatever they are already doing, thank you very much. And the civil servants in every department think that in order to do their job and address their current important issue they need wide-ranging new powers. The president can't waste his time and political capital to fight each and every such initiative, especially when we need to get something done about the "current important issue" right now.

Re:Correction

[Anonymous Coward]

there is *no* credible reason why such "compelling reasons" need to be secrets.

Re:Correction

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually the OA is going by Chicago rules.

This eliminates that namby pamby afraid of getting sued, or eventually incarcerated, problem the Bush Administration had. The OA doesn't have to look over its shoulder every morning to see if the NYT is outing them. The OA AG feels quite secure in doing what it takes to provide the level of security they feel is necessary for the Country.

But only Bush does that stuff. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently not.

Re:Good Fucking Grief

[Anonymous Coward]

This article is Obama trolling. Why this had an "democrat" icon? It is the US Justice department work, not Obama's or his party. Stop take any thing gouvernemnet do as a partisant act. Also, when Bush was wrong doing, why there was no monkey icon?

As well they should

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem arises when they use the information they find for purposes other than their original intention. A no holes barred search for a gov't leak is 100% expected and necessary.

I don't see a problem here

[shutdown -p now]

They are investigating a crime. The guy they pulled the records on is directly linked to it (albeit not a suspect himself due to the nature of the law). They've got a warrant for it too, right and proper. And it's not something unusual in general - quote :

because subpoenas for financial records are standard practice in criminal investigations, there is no reason for the Justice Department not to use them to obtain records from journalists in leak probes. The data from credit and bank records would allow prosecutors to home in on where journalists have traveled, lunches or dinners they might have paid for, and other information that could help identify their sources for a story, the former prosecutor said.

So what's the big deal?

Re:I don't see a problem here

[Anonymous Coward]

The big deal is, this is /. therefore everything/everyone is evil and whining must take place.

Re:I don't see a problem here

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is we have a right to freedom of association and these actions are NOT illegal. The government should be not able to subpoena information of a person where no crime had been even suspected. This is no information on a person who committed the crime (did the leaking). It is on a person who commited no crime and isn't suspected of committing a crime (the reporter).

Re:I don't see a problem here

[corbettw]

The big deal is the United States has a First Amendment to our Constitution, which guarantees freedom of the press. Traditionally, the very idea of investigating reporters was anathema, and when the Bush Administration did it, people were (rightly) upset about it. But now the Obama Administration is doing that and more, and no one seems to care.

Just another example that Democrats (and Republicans, too) really don't have principles, they just want the other side to do whatever their side is doing.

Re:I don't see a problem here

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you psyop!

Re:I don't see a problem here

[shutdown -p now]

They are investigating this reporter because his actions are relevant to the crime commited. The reporter himself is not charged with anything so I don't see how freedom of press is supressed by this.

Re:I don't see a problem here

[shutdown -p now]

This happens to be one of those crimes where it takes two to commit it, but only one side is a criminal. Nonetheless this means that the information on the other person involved is directly relevant to criminal invetigation and will likely help to identify the criminal. Therefore it is reasonable for it to be requested.

Re:I don't see a problem here

[Lehk228]

the reporter was caught in the splash because he was dealing with a criminal, also they would have been interested in whether or not the reported paid the leaker, in which case he would have been guilty of espionage.

Re:I don't see a problem here

[bill_mcgonigle]

They are investigating this reporter because his actions are relevant to the crime commited. The reporter himself is not charged with anything so I don't see how freedom of press is supressed by this.

It's possible there are some chilling-effect implications. But, it's probably closer to "All OK" than to "Lincoln jailing critical journalists".

Re:I don't see a problem here

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you so totally daft that you can not see the big deal as you call it? The big deal is that with third party subpeonas the person being actually targeted rarely gets the chance to contest the subpeona. You find this to be acceptable in a so-called democracy in which one is guaranteed due process?

Re:I don't see a problem here

[Anonymous Coward]

So investigating a reporter for e.g. murder would traditionally be anathema? Sorry, but a potential accessory to a crime should be investigated. Whistleblowing of classified info is a crime - it is not the whistleblower's job to decide what should and should not be disclosed.

Re:I don't see a problem here

[Anonymous Coward]

That your law sucks. Government should not be allowed to seek out sources of journalists, at least not by tracking the communications of said journalist. If you wage war on whistle blowers, you end up being like china.

For a good counter example, look at Iceland and their Icelandic Modern Media Initiative. You might also be interested in reading up on the US' treatment of IMMI proponents from the Icelandic government.

Re:Good Fucking Grief

[countertrolling]

Actually, we are getting it both ways...and we like it!

Maybe not on Obama's Watch

[the eric conspiracy]

From the article:

Matt Miller, a spokesman for the Justice Department, declined to comment on the court filing or say whether department subpoenas for Risenâ(TM)s bank and credit reports occurred under President Barack Obamaâ(TM)s attorney general, Eric Holder, or earlier, during the Bush administration, when the investigation into Sterling began. A lawyer for Risen also declined comment.

So we don't actually know under which administration the subpoenas were issued.

Therefore most of the comments on the story putting forth the idea that Obama = Bush in this case are speculation. It's also interesting to note that the information was obtained with subpoena, so due process was followed.

 

Re:Maybe not on Obama's Watch

[Anonymous Coward]

From the article:

Matt Miller, a spokesman for the Justice Department, declined to comment on the court filing or say whether department subpoenas for Risenâ(TM)s bank and credit reports occurred under President Barack Obamaâ(TM)s attorney general, Eric Holder, or earlier, during the Bush administration, when the investigation into Sterling began. A lawyer for Risen also declined comment.

So we don't actually know under which administration the subpoenas were issued.

Therefore most of the comments on the story putting forth the idea that Obama = Bush in this case are speculation. It's also interesting to note that the information was obtained with subpoena, so due process was followed.

Nice try.

Not.

Now wipe off your chin.

Policy positions from earlier admininstrations sure didn't stop the Obama DoJ from changing its mind on whether or not to defend the "Defense of Marriage Act".

So if the subpeonas were actually issued during the Bush administration, the Obama DoJ sure as hell could drop pursuing them, now couldn't they?

Although the way Obama has gone from excoriating the "Patriot Act" to signing extensions of it, or from claiming he'd close Gitmo to keeping it open for indefinite detention, or from attacking the Bush-era tax rates to actually agreeing to extend them while Democrats still had majority control of the House and Senate(!!!!) does make one wonder...

Re:Maybe not on Obama's Watch

[the eric conspiracy]

The subpoenas could have easily been executed during the Bush administration. You certainly have no evidence when it happened.

As far as the other points, I would have liked other outcomes there too. Unfortunately they didn't happen.

Re:Maybe not on Obama's Watch

[Anonymous Coward]

The subpoenas could have easily been executed during the Bush administration. You certainly have no evidence when it happened.

As far as the other points, I would have liked other outcomes there too. Unfortunately they didn't happen.

It's OBAMA'S DoJ that's following up in the subpeona(s), NOT the BUSH DoJ.

If the Obama DoJ thought the subpeonas were wrong, they DON'T have to follow up on them. They were able to change their policy regarding the Defense of Marriage Act, much to Newt Gingrich's consternation.

Therefore, one MUST assume that the Obama DoJ thinks going after this information is fine. Because even if the Bush DoJ originated the request, the Obama DoJ is free to say, "Nevermind".

Re:Maybe not on Obama's Watch

[the eric conspiracy]

What do you mean "following up"? What exactly does that entail? What, EXACTLY did the Obama administration do? Please supply links/citations.

The subpoenas were issued by Bush or Obama we don't know which. In compliance to the subpoenas banks and phone companies supplied records to the DOJ as they are required to by law.

When pre-trial discovery occurred the defense found the records in the prosecution's disclosure. There is no information publicly available as to WHEN they made it into the case records at the DOJ or if the DOJ under Obama did anything whatsoever to obtain those records.

Re:Good Fucking Grief

[Anonymous Coward]

Said the politician who was molesting a child smoking weed, while wearing a bomb vest.

captcha: uprising

Well I felt better with Bush doing it

[Shivetya]

because we had the press vigorously pursuing every perceived and real attack on our privacy and rights while he was there. Now I am stuck with Fox to do it and have to screen everything they print/show to make sure I am not falling for something from the paranoia side. Worse, all those screaming voices on the Democratic side of Congress are woefully silent with regards to everything our President chooses to do.

If the press rode his ass like they did Bush we would be better off, it might make him live up to his promises/promise. Now all I want is to see him a one term President so we have a chance of something better next time.

Re:Well I felt better with Bush doing it

[causality]

Worse, all those screaming voices on the Democratic side of Congress are woefully silent with regards to everything our President chooses to do.

Of course. These people have no principles. They believe in nothing other than their own indulgence and selfish advancement. Their most heart-felt beliefs are determined by the way the winds are blowing. They are utterly decadent and, if you will, soul-less. That's why the same police-state shit is okay if "their guy" is doing it, but a horrible outrage if the "other guy" does it. Really, the only thing they can't stand is that the puppet performing the action doesn't sport their logo.

 

If the press rode his ass like they did Bush we would be better off, it might make him live up to his promises/promise. Now all I want is to see him a one term President so we have a chance of something better next time.

It will be "change we can believe in!" all over again and people will eat that shit up because they so badly want to believe it. After the warm fuzzies start to fade away, it will be "meet the new boss, same as the old boss". The masses will be surprised by this because they are shallow, so they see that this puppet figurehead is different from the last puppet figurehead -- what they fail to see is that the exact same economic and political forces choose all of the puppet figureheads. Fish in a barrel is what they are. It is what they will remain until they wake up and start wanting something better for themselves.

To further reinforce the point, I'll borrow a quote from Matthew Parris, regarding television shows:

...is it dishonest for the presenter to imply that the pundit in the chair is free to offer any opinion, when the truth is that fifty pundits were
telephoned, but only the fellow prepared to offer the requisite opinion was invited?

Yes, it is dishonest. They do that because it takes a lot of money and effort to produce a show and reach a large audience. The people who are putting up that money want some assurance that there will be a return on their investment. So they don't want just any person to offer just any opinion, because that's a wildcard, an unknown. They want exactly what they pay for.

Politics works this way. Only the fellow with the requisite political beliefs and lack of principles will be invited. The monied interests that lobby and pay for campaigns do this because it takes a lot of money and effort to fund a campaign and provide the support it takes to get someone into high office. They want a return on their investment in the form of someone who represents their interests. The voters are taken for granted, for time after time it is the well-funded darling of the media who is never seriously scrutinized, who is always portrayed as a great guy, who gets the votes.

Until you fix that it really doesn't matter what the President's name is.

Re:Well I felt better with Bush doing it

[Lawrence_Bird]

even more amusing is that they are chasing after things that the Bush dodo's dropped.

Re:Good Fucking Grief

[doug]

The party and political inclination of the POTUS has everything to do with it. When W was elected, his DoJ decided to stop investigating/charging MS for violating the Sherman Antitrust Act, although Clinton's DoJ put a lot of time/money into it. Now O's DoJ has decided that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional and unenforceable, something that W's DoJ would never have done. Different administrations, different slants on things.

- doug

PS: I'm not saying that W or O had any direct influence over either of these choices. But the president does get to nominate a lot of the top people in the DoJ, and everyone in the executive branch works for the president. And it is a good thing that the president's views come out in DoJ, because that is the whole point of having elections.

Re:Good Fucking Grief

[FridayBob]

Excuse me, but often today's leaker turns out to be tomorrow's hero.

For example, after the Pentagon Papers were leaked to the New York Times in 1971, it showed that a number of presidents had lied to the American people and violated their oaths to uphold the Constitution. That leak helped to end the Vietnam war.

Daniel Ellsberg, the leaker and the first person ever to be prosecuted for a leak in the United States, was prosecuted under the Espionage Act of 1917. This act had been designed for espionage and, until that time, had never been used for anything else except to prosecute spies: those who act with the express intent to harm the US or help a foreign power. However, against Ellsberg they used a clause within the act that says only those with legal authority may publish classified documents. The same clause is now being used against Bradley Manning.

Why use the Espionage Act against leakers? Because, unlike Great Britain, the US has never had an Official Secrets Act: a law that would criminalize any and all disclosure of classified information. Efforts have been made by Congress to pass one -- the last time under Bill Clinton (which he vetoed) -- but this has never succeeded, because lawmakers have always considered that it would be too much at odds with the First Amendment. Yet, that's the way the Espionage Act is now being used.

Finally, is it not highly ironic that, even as the government prosecutes Bradley Manning, the State Dept. is promoting a documentary film that celebrates Daniel Ellsberg and his leaking of the Pentagon Papers? (see this link).

Re:bhgkjhkjkjhkfjjfh

[Anonymous Coward]

Moderation -1
  70% Offtopic
  30% Insightful

Somebody with mod points found parent insightful? Really?

Re:Good Fucking Grief

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not saying that the presient do not have influence. But ever since Obama was elected, it is always "Obama's this", "Obama's that" where before it was "Governement did shit! Blah blah blah. In conclusion Bush MAY be to blame". This is clearly Obama trolling.

Take any boring stuff governemnt do, add "Obama's" in front and you got your headline.

Most Transparent Administration EVAR

[conspirator57]

Perhaps you were asleep during Bush's presidency... Bush brought us medicare part d, the largest expansion in entitlements in 20 years. not that that or Obama's "reform" are any good... for anyone who isn't in the health care industry. one of the statistics the left used as a rhetoric bludgeon was the lower cost of healthcare as a % of GDP in countries with socialized health care. a casual look at the "reform" enacted shows clearly that healthcare spending as a % of GDP in the US will go dramatically *up*, not down. it's change you can't believe in.

at the time DADT was instituted it was considered a progressive reform, enabling gays to serve in a military that had thitherto been actively pursuing them rather than simply reacting to reports. was it still bad? yes. but to pretend that its end was some great victory of Obama is madness, especially when our military has such trouble meeting recruitment objectives that nearly half our forces in iraq and afghanistan are mercenaries. letting gays serve openly is just one lever to alleviate pressure before having to reinstitute the draft, something which would instantly invert popular support for the wars.

and in some ways he's *worse* than Bush, not merely "deeply disappointing." don't take my word for it, ask the EFF or the ACLU.

and how about them wars after all? no, you can keep your Bush III. sane people will be voting for someone else. almost anyone else.

but back to the topic. Obama ran explicitly on a platform of openness, transparency, and not punishing whistleblowers. Most Transparent Administration EVAR.

Re:Most Transparent Administration EVAR

[phoebus1553]

letting gays serve openly is just one lever to alleviate pressure before having to reinstitute the draft, something which would instantly invert popular support for the wars.

Invert eh? So there would someone supporting for the wars? I think you mistake supporting the troops for supporting the wars. We support the people doing their job, even if the job sucks and we can't get enough elected officials to stop it.

Re:Most Transparent Administration EVAR

[conspirator57]

no, i think the timing of the measure is... oddly coincidental. and i don't believe in coincidences when so much power is on the line. oh, and most of the country supports the wars, even if we do not. otherwise the politicians wouldn't.

If it's National Security

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's National Security related, then yes, not only should they dig through everything- they should charge them with treason and kill them if found guilty. But if it won't get any US Citizens killed now or in the future, then no. It's not national security related.

Since the leak was "national defense information", that sounds like it falls into the former category. Which means not only should they crawl up that reporters ass, but they should come to an understanding that releasing the information will get you charged with treason. And effectively end your life, before you get other people killed for your ego.

No Supprise Here

[Anonymous Coward]

The Barak-O-Vision facist state strives ever more for more lawlessness and immorality.

With the troubles in Libya and Bahrain, the Latch-Key Banana Republic States, Cornerstones, of hte Bush-Obama Terrior Organizaiton, with their dealings in cocaine trafficing, slave (sex) trafficing, gun running, even tabacoo and whiskey trafficing, no wonder that Barak-O-Vision spends nights in the 2nd floor toilet closet, trembling, sweating buckets, doing cocaine, and masterbating like there is no tomorrow. For Barak-O-Vision, there number of tomorrows is reducing, and at an ever increasing rate.

-308

Re:Good Fucking Grief

[Anonymous Coward]

Correction: the President does not nominate top people in the DoJ, he appoints them directly. Nomination is for the top people of the Judicial branch.

Re: Do the Ends Justify the Means

[dragonturtle69]

Sooooo, it would be okay then for the DOJ to have standing taps on all communications going to all reporters and reporting agencies? After all, criminals, including those illegally reporting illegal activity, would go to reporters.

Would the DOJ, or your local law enforcement, be okay to trail you, because you met with a suspected criminal?

Back in the day, some (LAPD comes to mind first) agencies would tap pay phones, just trolling ALL of the conversations, then using the information to get search warrants, then led to arrests and convictions. To be clear, this is a little grey, as, IIRC, no innocents were arrested as a result, and many criminals were jailed.

Maybe the first question ought to be do the ends justify the means?

Re: Do the Ends Justify the Means

[dragonturtle69]

Trolling = fishing, dragging a large net to see what they can catch. Not the internet version of trolling.

... as they should...

[binaryseraph]

The job of the government is to keep its information secure and plug the leaks where they can and punish those who leak the info. This is not abnormal (and, quite honestly, I find it comforting). Now, going after reporters to try and get their sources, this is a little bit of a step over a grey fuzzy line- but not at all shocking. There is some mighty sensitive data out there that can actually do *real harm* if released.


On the flip side, if data is released well as they say "thems the breaks." Better luck next time to the govt to check out its staff- and not shooting the messenger.

Re: Do the Ends Justify the Means

[shutdown -p now]

Sooooo, it would be okay then for the DOJ to have standing taps on all communications going to all reporters and reporting agencies? After all, criminals, including those illegally reporting illegal activity, would go to reporters.

No, because you need to be investigating some specific crime first, one that you know has happened. Furthermore, you need strong evidence that the reporter in question has actually been in contact with the person who is either the perpetrator or an accomplice.

Would the DOJ, or your local law enforcement, be okay to trail you, because you met with a suspected criminal?

Depends. If, after said meeting, I have communicated some information that indicates that I have talked to him about criminal matters, and if they believe the subpoena may help pin the suspect down, then sure - so long as they get a proper warrant (i.e. can convince the judge that all of the above hold true).

Back in the day, some (LAPD comes to mind first) agencies would tap pay phones, just trolling ALL of the conversations

That is illegal.

Maybe the first question ought to be do the ends justify the means?

Depends on the ends and the means. Mass "preemptive" surveillance is never justifiable. Surveillance of one particular person, when the "end" is specific and not vague, and when there is reasonable belief that it may be of help, can be justifiable.

You have to be kidding me

[DerekLyons]

"This tells us the Obama administration will do almost anything to figure out who is leaking government information."

You have to be kidding me. What planet is Ms. Dalglish from, or what is she smoking? Obtaining the telephone, credit, and bank records is pretty much standard procedure for any criminal investigation of any significance. That the administration is doing so as part of a criminal investigation tells us nothing.

Re:Good Fucking Grief

[Anonymous Coward]

When the SECRETS expose CORRUPTION, and you've sworn an oath to protect the constitution, it's a BAD LAW.

But you already know that. Because your account is a motherfucking psyop account! You fucking piece of shit.

the 'job' of the .gov't is to serve it's citizens

[Anonymous Coward]

not themselves/their secrets. there isn't anything that we do not have the right to know about/vote for, AGAINST etc....

These lengths will not be enough

[elucido]

The Justice Dept also has informants, wiretaps, backdoors in popular software. What you present are the very basics, the core minimum. A journalist will need to know this and then some.

It's not enough to just have sophisticated software. The software will just be outlawed, banned, and anyone caught with it will be abused until they give up the key or give up their sources.

Re:These lengths will not be enough

[Anonymous Coward]

The Justice Dept also has informants, wiretaps, backdoors in popular software. [citation needed]

Do you wear a tin-foil eyemask to bed, and line your sportcoats with the same? Do you look all four ways when you cross the street? Let me guess, you think childhood immunization programs are prescribed by the government to hurt children, make them autistic and whatnot, and buy your guns with a name like 'Rusty Shackleford'.

about time

[Anonymous Coward]

it's about time someone plugged some holes!

trolling (was Re: Do the Ends Justify the Means)

[KWTm]

rolling = fishing, dragging a large net to see what they can catch. Not the internet version of trolling.

What exactly did you think the "internet version of trolling" was? Hint: although people who engage in trolling on Internet forums (ie. casting a dragnet to fish for responses from other forum members) are called trolls and even described as ugly monsters living under bridges, the reference to these bridge-related monsters are just figures of speech and are not related to deliberately provoking a response from a wide range of people to try to catch some prey.

Re:Good Fucking Grief

[Aeternitas827]

Correction: the President does not nominate top people in the DoJ, he appoints them directly. Nomination is for the top people of the Judicial branch.

Correction of the Correction: The Attorney General is a Cabinet position, and the head of the DoJ; Cabinet positions are appointments by and with the consent of the Senate by simple majority. Federal judgeships, including SCOTUS openings must also be approved in the same way.

Records get subpoenad all the time

[Anonymous Coward]

First, it was bush who started this, he also started the airport detectors which I head one republican call "Obama's little peep show". That's besides the point though.

Second, and more relevant, I sat on the grand jury for a month. People would come to us all the time for subpoenas of people's records. A lot of times I wanted more evidence before invading someone's privacy, but the other rubber stamps would approve it. If you don't like it, change the laws. It's nothing new.

And where does passing the buck stop?

[AliasMarlowe]

It's a tiny bit dishonest to say "the X administration" unless it was a conscious policy of X, not something that you can expect to see from X-1 and x+1.

In that case, administrations X-1, X, and X+1 would all be equally deserving of our contempt and criticism. There is no dishonesty involved: each functionary is acting on guidelines or instructions or policy formed by their superior, who in turn is acting on guidelines or instructions or policy formed by their superior. And so it goes, each level escaping responsibility until we remember where Harry Truman said the buck stopped.

cash

[Anonymous Coward]

... it just works

Another article

[Anonymous Coward]

http://reason.com/blog/2011/02/25/obamas-war-on-whistleblowers

Re: Do the Ends Justify the Means

[Anonymous Coward]

Trolling in fishing is dragging a fishing line from a fishing pole. Trawling is dragging a net.

Re: Do the Ends Justify the Means

[dragonturtle69]

Doh!

Fixed that for you

[Anonymous Coward]

'This tells us the Obama administration will [break the law] to figure out who is leaking government information.'

And it still won't stop the information from existing. Nor will it stop others from wanting to do the same.

"Why doesn't Obama want anything to improve, but the "terrorists" do?" -- Is this really what they want people to think? Because they're really making it easy.

The Department of In-justice

[CodeBuster]

Has anyone else noticed that in recent years, extending back at least a decade or so, the Department of "Justice" has become more and more politicized and less and less interested with the administration of real justice? There are examples from both the Bush and the Obama administrations where this is true. For example, Bush acquiring any "justification" that he wished for exercise of wartime powers by the Executive branch while the Obama administration has ordered the department to delay, to the extent possible, the hearing of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act by the Supreme Court (which is going to hear the case eventually in anyway) or to "not enforce" the defense of marriage act? As a citizen, I no longer have any faith that the Department of Justice is really concerned with justice and doing what is right. Indeed, it seems that political expediency is now the word of the day at the Department of Justice. Now, you may agree or disagree with the ultimate aims of these tactics employed by the Department of Justice, but unless one also subscribes to an "ends justify the means" philosophy it should be troubling that the Department of Justice is so arbitrary and political when it comes to upholding the laws of the land. People should be careful about how their favored ends are achieved; means matter and destroying our system for the sake of a favored political goal is the first step on the road to totalitarianism.

Ugh

[Chardansearavitriol]

I hate when my party does crap like this. Im no perfectionist, and I dont like seeing anyone be smashed repeatedly for things they dont deserve, no matter their side. But this kinda crap is beyond acceptable, and we all know it. Sadly, this did not come up during the elections. So, all we can do is pressure our party to stop being jerks and investigating the CRIMES, not the people who report them. No onei n this country trusts authority any more, no matter which side of the isle. This is the kinda thing that everyone in power does, that makes us distrust them.