Feds Confiscate Investigative Reporter's Confidential Files During Raid 622
schwit1 writes "Using a warrant to search for guns, Homeland security officers and Maryland police confiscated a journalist's confidential files. The reporter had written a series of articles critical of the TSA. It appears that the raid was specifically designed to get her files, which contain identifying information about her sources in the TSA. 'In particular, the files included notes that were used to expose how the Federal Air Marshal Service had lied to Congress about the number of airline flights there were actually protecting against another terrorist attack,' Hudson [the reporter] wrote in a summary about the raid provided to The Daily Caller. Recalling the experience during an interview this week, Hudson said: 'When they called and told me about it, I just about had a heart attack.' She said she asked Bosch [the investigator heading the raid] why they took the files. He responded that they needed to run them by TSA to make sure it was 'legitimate' for her to have them. '"Legitimate" for me to have my own notes?' she said incredulously on Wednesday. Asked how many sources she thinks may have been exposed, Hudson said: 'A lot. More than one. There were a lot of names in those files. This guy basically came in here and took my anonymous sources and turned them over — took my whistleblowers — and turned it over to the agency they were blowing the whistle on,' Hudson said. 'And these guys still work there.'"
I donâ(TM)t suppose... (Score:5, Insightful)
I donâ(TM)t suppose this critical file of confidential sources and interview information was encrypted?
Re:I donâ(TM)t suppose... (Score:5, Insightful)
Doesn't seem that way.
I mean, seriously? What kind of journalist, investigating malfeasance by federal agencies, would have the names of her sources in plain text?
The kind who isn't a computer expert.
I know it's hard to do considering the crowd here, but try and keep in mind - most people, journalists included, barely even know what encryption is, let alone how to use it properly.
Regardless, her Constitutional rights should have negated any need for encrypting her work. That is what we should take away from this.
Re:I donâ(TM)t suppose... (Score:5, Insightful)
I sure hope to hell that they are teaching the basics of encryption in journalism classes these days....
Re:I donâ(TM)t suppose... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I donâ(TM)t suppose... (Score:5, Insightful)
Hold on, she was the victim here. SHe doesn't need to do encryption because at one point thre was this thing called the constitution. You're making like a rape case. "Come on, she shouldn't have worn that dress, she was inviting it". No, the reporter was doing her job and whether she wrote on paper, plain text on a computer she had rights...and the Government raped them.
Re: (Score:3)
The funny thing about it now, is the claim by Homeland security that they need to keep the documents as they might contain evidence of crimes but and here's the 'big butt', according to the warrant that would have been obtained illegal and would be thrown out in a court of law.
So no attempt at justice, straight up internal persecution of whistle blowers that the Uncle Tom Obama administration has become globally well known for. With full intent to break the law by the Department of Homeland Security to a
Re:I donâ(TM)t suppose... (Score:5, Insightful)
Hold on, she was the victim here. SHe doesn't need to do encryption because at one point thre was this thing called the constitution.
Yes, she was the victim. However, there are ways of making yourself less likely to become a victim. This is what we are talking about.
You're making like a rape case. "Come on, she shouldn't have worn that dress, she was inviting it".
I personally think some irresponsible behaviour increases the likelihood of crimes happening to you. If I go in to a Chelsea pub just prior to a Chelsea/Tottenham game, and start mouthing off about how shit Chelsea are, and anyone who follows them is a braindead prawn sandwich eating Russian mafia financing twat, I'm quite likely to get a kicking. I'm still the victim there, but there were things that I could have done which might have decreased my likelihood of becoming a victim.
Rape is rape, assault is assault. Someone putting themselves in a bad situation does not excuse or lessen the crime. I'll repeat that... doing something provocative does not excuse or lessen a crime if it is committed on you. However, knowing about these situations, and learning to avoid them helps them not happen to you. Knowing what triggers these crimes and talking about what triggers these crimes is _not_ blaming the victim. The blame is still entirely on the attacker.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:I donâ(TM)t suppose... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I do not disagree in the least.
However, as has been pointed out by others, it's kinda hard to encrypt notes written on good ol' fashioned paper.
So, learn encryption, and buy a good safe.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
it's kinda hard to encrypt notes written on good ol' fashioned paper.
Well, maybe three things should've been taught at once in journalism school: Encryption, a scanner, and a secure shredder.
Re:I donâ(TM)t suppose... (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you kidding? She just got a PhD from the school of hard knocks! She would be the first one to go so, since she just completely lost every last shred of her complacency.
Re:I donâ(TM)t suppose... (Score:5, Insightful)
Encryption per se doesn't even need to come in to this. Just don't have the real names visible on the documents. Come up with nicknames and never use the real names.
That's what really struck me about this: She knew she was investigating something that certain, powerful people in government would not like her to investigate, yet didn't even have the good sense to use aliases for her sources?
Not that it excuses the government for flagrantly violating her rights, but shit, man, you don't have to make it easy for them!
Re: (Score:3)
Personally, I would use the names of some bad guys at the TSA as aliases, ...
Not likley (Score:3)
Their names were never published, and only discovered in an illegal search. If I write down in my notebook 'Cowboy Neal has inappropriate sexual relations with his water bottle', and never tell anyone what I have written, and never publish it, than what exactly am I guilty of?
END COMMUNICATION
Re: (Score:3)
She may or may not have had aliases. I don't think aliases would have helped because she also had phone numbers. At that point they know who she's been calling.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:I donâ(TM)t suppose... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
If you are going to use a coded list of whistle-blower names, It's only reasonable to use the names of the managers of the agency the whistle-blower works for.
Re:I donâ(TM)t suppose... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:I donâ(TM)t suppose... (Score:5, Interesting)
That's right. The scope of a search warrant can only be exceeded if there is evidence of some crime "in plain sight" when the authorities enter the premises.
I don't see how the data in a computer file can ever be said to be "in plain sight".
One thing that bothers me about this story is that the source is the Daily Caller. The surveillance beat is active enough right now that if this was real, we'd be reading about it in the Washington Post, Guardian, and dozens of reputable websites that focus on the press and privacy and government enforcement overreach.
So I'm going to hold my water on this until the story appears in an actual hard-news outlet. I don't doubt that US law enforcement and intelligence services would do something like that, but it doesn't help the cause of fighting this stuff if we latch on to some right-wing website that has a long record of getting stories wrong.
Re:I don't suppose... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, actually, it does. If a warrant says "search and seize guns", and you find something that's not a gun, you don't get to mess with it.
"[N]o Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." "Guns and whatever other stuff we find" is not a particular description.
Bullshit. A prima facie examination of a document is all that would be required.
Re:I don't suppose... (Score:5, Insightful)
that very well might have to do with the purchase/maintenance/use of guns.
When you start adding arbitrary meaning to your interpretation of the law, you can get away with anything. I mean, why don't they seize the house too, since it was obviously used to shelter said gun, and also seize bank accounts because the money to purchase the guns came from there.... etc, etc etc. THIS is what is happening all over America - bullshit interpretation of what you WANT the law to mean instead of what it actually means. On the part of cops, judges and prosecutors. Well, do enjoy the police state this has led to. I'm glad I don't live there.
Re:I don't suppose... (Score:4, Interesting)
A search warrant has to list what is being searched for. If it's not on the list it can't be taken.
Now they did see official-use-only documents that they took, and presumably they could attempt to justify this as being evidence of other illegal activity (stealing documents). However they also took her handwritten notes which clearly were not official government documents.
Not only that, they did not make it clear to the journalist that documents were even taken, who only found out about this a month later.
These notes were then passed on to the TSA who has no jurisdiction in the matter.
Basically there was a long string of mistakes being made by the law enforcement. Enough so that you could use this in a cadet training program as an "identify everything illegal in this search procedure" exercise.
Re: (Score:3)
Now they did see official-use-only documents that they took, and presumably they could attempt to justify this as being evidence of other illegal activity (stealing documents).
Certainly NOT. No matter how the documents were marked, if it wasn't something covered by the warrant, then they would have to AT LEAST have had probable cause to believe the documents were stolen FIRST, before it would be legal to seize them. Law enforcement simply DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY to seize documents in order to later try to find evidence of something illegal. That's called a "fishing expedition" and it is illegal as hell.
Re: (Score:3)
According to the article summery, the claim is that the files were taken specifically because they didn't know if the TSA would allow her to have them.
So evidently, they did read the notes and knew they had nothing to do with the purchase/maintenance/use
Re: (Score:3)
The stack of documents taken had one labeled "For Official Use Only", which means it's considered sensitive information that should not be widespread. It's not important enough to classify as a secret, but it could be a contribution to a security risk. For example, a list of known problems with military equipment is usually FOUO, because an enemy could exploit the problem before it can be fixed.
That makes the whole stack fair game for confiscation, while they make sure that the information contained within is actually safe for release (which apparently, it was, as the FOUO document was from a FOIA request).
That's lovely and all, but what right did the police have to open file-folders and look through documents in the first place if the warrant was for firearms and ammunition? Did the search warrant specify paper guns, or drawings of guns? Did they think they were in possession of some new paper-thin guns that could be hidden between sheets of paper in a file-folder?
Given the content of the warrant and the laws governing search warrants, officers serving said warrant examining ANY documents that were not laid
It used to be the Constitution (Score:3)
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[1]"
Note 'particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized'.
People were familiar with this trick a long time ago.
Re:I donâ(TM)t suppose... (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem with what allegedly happened here is that once the "cat is out of the bag", i.e. the TSA has seen the documents, they cannot be unseen. The cops and prosecutors involved could get fired or even jailed, but in the meantime the TSA got what it wanted and can do whatever they wish with the information, which is most likely firing or demoting/transferring the whistleblowers while giving unrelated cause for those actions.
Re:I donâ(TM)t suppose... (Score:5, Insightful)
The kind that isn't aware that she lives in a police state. You can continue to delude yourselves if you like, but it's pretty clear at this point that that's what the US has become. It's no longer a matter of 'if this continues'; it's here.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This sucks. And I'm interested to see the follow up on it. But if you think the US is a police state, then you don't know what a police state is.
This reporter was writing articles exposing government misconduct, and she's a free woman who is publicizing her story on the internet. That doesn't happen in a police state.
Re:I donâ(TM)t suppose... (Score:5, Insightful)
If one can expect a SWAT raid for exercising one's freedoms, the exact details of the oppression are insignificant.
Mod parent up. (Score:5, Insightful)
And "exercising one's freedoms" doesn't convey the complete scenario.
She was REPORTING on LIES that GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES were telling.
So she is treated the same as if she was holding innocent children hostage at gunpoint.
We are not in a "police state" yet. But tactics such as that for "crimes" that are not crimes WITHOUT REPERCUSSIONS FOR WHOMEVER AUTHORIZED IT do blur the distinction.
Re:I donâ(TM)t suppose... (Score:5, Insightful)
You may want to look up "Free speech zones", "Constitution free zones", and VIPR Teams. You may want to read up on what the NSA is doing. I've got a pretty good idea of what a police state is. If you get the equivalent of "papers please" when driving through your own country, you're pretty much there and raiding journalists puts it over the top. You may think that she needs to be thrown in jail for that to be the case, but the chilling effect on both journalists and whistleblowers will be served just fine by the raid alone.
Re: (Score:3)
However this is a big step towards that police state. Ie, police are blatantly exceeding their authority, and doing so in a way to discourage and hinder a journalist, and they're not being held accountable for this. They really only needed a couple of people for a legitimate search for guns if they suspected that someone on parole was using them. At the very least this is a huge amount of corruption.
This is amazingly far beyond where we should be as a free democracy, and it needs to be rolled back. Prob
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Nor do I, and I've been watching the slow intersection of the excrement with the air moving device for 79 years now. You see a splatter on the walls occasionally, but the build up is so slow its not noticed.
I am proud of my country and what we have done, I have even had a walk on part in it now & then, but I'm scared shitless of my government and have been since the mid '60's.
WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, seriously? What kind of journalist, investigating malfeasance by federal agencies, would have the names of her sources in plain text? Sounds like someone on the local newspaper who would ordinarily be writing the horoscopes and gardening news.
Wait a minute! You are implying it's the Journalists fault and not the Government's fault who illegally confiscated her materials? Either that or you are diverting the argument from the Government Employees breaking the law.
You should be ranting and raving to get Government Employees people fired and put in jail for breaking the law, not complaining about the journalists.
Are you happy that your tax dollars were just spent in illegal activities? Just not care as long as it's not you getting fucked?
Re: (Score:3)
I can do both.
If you are a journalist, LEARN ENCRYPTION.
And don't stop there. Learn what you need to erase and how to correctly erase it and where to store it in the meantime.
The government is going to use tactics like this so your first obligation should be to protect your sources. That way you can get the story out and the public can get our representatives
Re: (Score:3)
That line of thinking is worse than complacency, it's acceptance of corruption. When a Government employee breaks the law they are supposed to be subject to the same punishments as any other member of society. In my opinion, the punishment should be more strict even as these are the people that are given additional trust for performing public service works in addition to getting paid by the input of the public. I.E. You could receive a minimum sentence for theft, a public servant should get the maximum
Re: (Score:3)
Consider it this way: The very thing she was investigating was corruption in government, in one of the forms corruption takes. That being the case, it's not a stretch to imagine that she might run into corruption of other parts of government. She was investigating a branch of law enforcement. It would not be a stretch to imagine that she might run into collusion from other branches of law enforcement.
I absolutely agree that things should not be like this. That for something like this to happen is messe
Re: (Score:3)
If you read TFA, you will see that the documents are not computer files but plain documents. Therefor no encryption would be possible. No, I don't expect journalists to invent and lug around "Enigma" machines, and I expect that public servants act within the same laws society dictates.
Since it's DHS investigating this is the highest level of corruption, and State Police should take control and arrest every officer involved. They can turn the Coast Guard members back over to the DOD for a court marshal, b
Re:I donâ(TM)t suppose... (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey America! How's your police state working for you so far?
Re:I donâ(TM)t suppose... (Score:5, Interesting)
Hey America! How's your police state working for you so far?
Still playing catch up with Red China, North Korea, and Cuba. But we are trying our best.
Re: (Score:3)
Still playing catch up with Red China, North Korea, and Cuba. But we are trying our best.
I'm not sure we're not already way past them. The tools used are much subtler in the US but may surpass them in effectiveness.
Re:I donâ(TM)t suppose... (Score:5, Insightful)
The interesting thing here is that being legally bared from owning or possessing a firearm is still not probable cause for a warrant. There had to be some evidence that a gun or ammunition was in the house as well as the resisting arrest charge being something that could bar your gun rights.
Resisting arrest in most states is only a misdemeanor which usually doesn't remove your gun rights. Is it possible that not only the premise for the warrant was unconstitutional but the premise for the premise was as well?
Perhaps the NSA intercepted a conversation with her and her mom talking about how her husband loves his birthday present and is running around the kitchen shooting everything with the salad shooter [saladshooter.com] or something as the pretext for the search.
Re: (Score:3)
The reporter was NOT bared from owning a weapon. They dug up some "resisting arrest" charge on her husband over 25 years ago, so he was the supposed "target!" The restriction on her rights to own a gun are only the same ones that every honest citizen of Maryland has to put up with.
As sad as it is, nothing about this story surprises me. This is the "hope and change" that we
Re:I donâ(TM)t suppose... (Score:5, Interesting)
I just looked through the MD court files. It appears that her husband was arrested on 4/14/85 for a carrying a concealed deadly weapon, assault, possession of Marihuana (as spelled on the docket) and resisting arrest. The concealed weapon charge was dismissed (Nolle Prosequi), the assault and possession of marihuana- he was found not guilty of. For the resisting arrest, he got a 3 year jail sentence that was suspended on probation for 3 years. The MD disqualifying crime is a 2 year jail term it seems.
It appears I assumed a few things incorrectly that were spelled out in the article. Supposedly the government thought he purchased machine gun parts from a Swede but it was a potato gun that didn't work. Who would have thought that her husband was anordinance technician for the Coast Guard in Baltimore and he wasn't legally allowed to own or posses a firearm.
Re: (Score:3)
Not to mention that warrants are supposed to outline those items subject to seizure. The seizure of files, if not listed in the warrant, is illegal, and those seizing them should be prosecuted and jailed. However, given how cozy prosecutors are with law enforcement, that will never happen.
The US government is now brazenly showing how much of an enemy of the people they are. The government has lost all legitimacy in my eyes, and I can only hope that it collapses within my lifetime. I want to see those runnin
Re:I donâ(TM)t suppose... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is America.
This is America under Obama.
This is America under Bush.
...and so on...
This is America under Clinton.
If you really think that a particular party is responsible for this, I have a multi-million dollar inheritance I need help moving out of Nigeria, and I just need your bank account number to make the transfer.
Re: I donâ(TM)t suppose... (Score:5, Insightful)
The surplus in the late 90's had more to do with the Republican congress not letting Clinton do much, than with Clinton's fiscal prowess.
That, and the dot com bubble that was inflating tax revenues, which vanished when the bubble burst.
But, go ahead and credit and blame the wrong parties for stuff.
USA (Score:5, Funny)
Re: All Hail Glorious Leader Obummer! (Score:4, Insightful)
The difference is in prior presidencies, the people doing this crap were fired, or arrested all the way up to the president resigning. Meanwhile, this joker keeps blaming everyone else and playing his golf.
Seriously? Did you just beam in?
Re: (Score:3)
The difference is in prior presidencies, the people doing this crap were fired, or arrested all the way up to the president resigning.
Uh. We are talking about the US here. Are you sure you are thinking of the right country?
Re: (Score:3)
Ding Dong, that's the sound of Ford pardoning Nixon because we're a nation of men, not of laws.
Constitution free zone (Score:4, Insightful)
'"Legitimate" for me to have my own notes?' she said incredulously on Wednesday.
Depends, how large are these constitution free border zones again?
Re: (Score:3)
Wherever the DHS claims terrorists may lurk, which is fucking everywhere.
Proletarier aller LÃnder, vereinigt Euch!
Re:Constitution free zone (Score:5, Insightful)
The irony of getting a warrant to raid a jornalist for "guns".....
But hey, a judge signed it... so it must be legit.
I smell a lawsuit here (Score:5, Insightful)
A raid to steal a reporter's notes (verses a Watergate sneak-theft)? That crosses the line into jackboot thuggery.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:I smell a lawsuit here (Score:5, Insightful)
no, that's just when you do raids. your target is more likely to be asleep or very tired waiting up for you all night. simple military tactics. welcome to the police state and a Constitution free US of A.
Re:I smell a lawsuit here (Score:4, Insightful)
How can a warrant to search for guns be turned into let me take these files too? Have we lost all control over law enforcement that they can now do anything that they want?
and it begs the question (Score:5, Insightful)
What imaginary guns were they looking for? Where'd the intell saying there were imaginary guns come from?
Re:and it begs the question (Score:5, Insightful)
Am I the only person in America who is not a felon, but who believes that convicted felons should be able to have guns AND vote once they've pay their dues (with prison, or whatever), just like regular non-felon folks are able to do?
If you want a picture of the future, (Score:4, Insightful)
imagine a boot stamping on a human face, forever.
Media (Score:5, Insightful)
Our government began abusing other countries and the media ignored it.
Our government began abusing it's citizens and the media ignored it.
Our government began abusing the media...
Re: (Score:3)
The "Media" won't care until they raid ABCCBSMSNBCCNN news headquarters. Then, it will be as if the world was ending.
Whistleblower Protection (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.whistleblowers.gov/ [whistleblowers.gov]
Re:Whistleblower Protection (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Whistleblower Protection (Score:5, Insightful)
Spoiler Alert: It won't.
Re:Whistleblower Protection (Score:5, Funny)
Don't be ridiculous, US laws don't protect enemy combatants.
Re:Whistleblower Protection (Score:4, Informative)
Also, the government is not subject to any law it finds inconvenient, limiting, or uncomfortable. Or any damn law it feels like ignoring.
information security, dear (Score:3, Insightful)
This looks to be well outside of the intent of the law, if not outside the reach of the national security letter, but the writing's been on the wall for a while now that even this government is out of control and can no longer be trusted at all, with any information, whatsoever.
Better to have off-site backups and have everything encrypted. Journalists critical of any government anywhere, take heed.
Re: (Score:3)
The entire article is misleading, or vague at best.
By "Department of Homeland Security," they mean the CGIS - Coast Guard Investigative Services - which for those of you who only watch CBS, is like NCIS, only for the Coast Guard.
The Coast Guard participated in the raid because:
Carlos Díaz, the chief of media relations for the Coast Guard, said in a statement that the Coast Guard Investigative Service was asked to participate in the raid because the search involved a Coast Guard employee. Flanagan is an ordinance technician for the Coast Guard in Baltimore.
So, "Homeland Security" participated because the CGIS is, technically, under the DHS, and only because the guy they raided is in the Coast Guard.
The only thing that puzzles me is how an ordinance technician for the US Coast Guard isn'
Nazi police state (Score:5, Interesting)
"Hitler's police state worked on the rule that if you said nothing, no harm, could come to you. If you had doubts about the way the country was going, you kept them to yourself - or paid the price".
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/nazi_police_state.htm [historylea...site.co.uk]
Where is the public outrage? (Score:4, Insightful)
Were this the previous administration (Bush) using jackbooted tactics like this there would be a huge uproar in the US press and public. Why do they tolerate it now? It's just as dangerous to freedom, and to people's rights and a free press as it would have been 8 years go.
Re:Where is the public outrage? (Score:5, Insightful)
Were this the previous administration (Bush) using jackbooted tactics like this there would be a huge uproar in the US press and public. Why do they tolerate it now? It's just as dangerous to freedom, and to people's rights and a free press as it would have been 8 years go.
I'm sorry to say that you are wrong. Bush invented things like "Free Speech Zones" and while he wasn't the first executive to attempt to control the press, he was outstandingly successful. I don't recall hearing the term "embedded" (a/k/a captive) reporter in pre-Bush military campaigns and the whole Patriot Act thing got passed without even a squeak.
That's what I hate about Obama. Hope and Change? No Hope! It's just Bush continued with a smoother tongue and a suntan.
Re:Where is the public outrage? (Score:5, Informative)
Bush didn't invent the Free Speech Zone. It was actually the democrats who first did that, at their 1988 convention. Bush is associated with the zones because he used them at far more events than any previous president, and under him the Secret Service took a much more active role in establishing the zones and in making sure the protesters were kept in their designated place. During his time the Secret Service also adopted a less politically neutral role in managing the protests - rather than directing all activists into free speech zones they would work to place pro-Bush campaigners in the most visible areas of crowds ahead of time, preemptively denying the prime territory to anti-Bush campaigners and making them easier to separate and shunt off to the FSZ safely out of view of any cameras.
But he didn't invent them. No need to falsely attribute that part to him: The things he actually did do are quite damning enough.
The best defense... (Score:5, Insightful)
At this point, the best defense is a good offense. They know by now their identities are compromised to their employer, so whatever they said that could be construed to be negative against the TSA will be used against them. Otherwise, it's just a waiting game to find out how much harassment and attrition will be leveled against them to force them to resign, if not downright fire them.
Except if they go public with it. In unison. Loudly. Right now.
Turn the tables. Then again, that approach will be heavily dependent on how the media will cover it, and what the spinsters have to say. Yes - there are risks. Yes - these are probably people with families and commitments and responsibilities that would be at risk. Then again, as of this raid, they already are.
In my mind, this was a stupid move by the establishment. The whistleblowers now have nothing to lose. Absolutely nothing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a bit sad when "Russia Today" is the preferred place to go when you are a whistleblower.
It's a game (Score:3)
How many constitutionally guaranteed rights can the DHS violate with a single action? Quite a few it turns out. . .
People yammering about the NSA need to understand (Score:3)
what the REAL threat to American freedom is: government bureaucrats desperately wanting to stay in power hooking up with jackbooted thugs cloaked in the mantle of the state, stomping all over Liberty.
Re: (Score:3)
A tyrant is someone who can sign the death warrants for a thousand people without a second thought.
A bureaucrat is someone who, when told they've been reprieved, will insist on properly-completed individual documents for each person.
Time to leave (Score:5, Interesting)
Search Warrant Scope (Score:3)
A warrant should be very specific about what items are to be siezed. If the warrant was for guns, how does that get extended to files ?
Re:Search Warrant Scope (Score:5, Insightful)
"Because."
And also, "Just because."
And finally, "Do you want some of this too? If not, shut up, mind your own business, and move along, Citizen."
felony offense (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
"And these guys still work there" (Score:3)
Not much longer.
This is Ellsberg-Burglary Bad (Score:3)
If this is true, law enforcement (a) blatantly exceeded the scope of a lawful search warrant; and (b) used a search warrant as a pretext to seize material that they had no authority to seize.
This is unusually bad. People need to lose their jobs for this.
Re: (Score:3)
If this is true, law enforcement (a) blatantly exceeded the scope of a lawful search warrant; and (b) used a search warrant as a pretext to seize material that they had no authority to seize.
This is unusually bad. People need to lose their jobs for this.
No, people need to be jailed for this.
Re: (Score:3)
Could you reference the law that makes possession of FOUO or LES documents illegal? Seeing as how even the personnel in question seem to not know if this is illegal (He responded that they needed to run them by TSA to make sure it was 'legitimate' for her to have them.) this seems to be a clear violation of the law. Also note that per "Horton V California" there is the requirement that "incriminating character of the object must be "immediately apparent."" to fall under Plain View doctrine exception. The
This cannot be true (Score:5, Informative)
I cannot believe that the Feds would do anything to hurt a whistleblower. After all, this text still appears (despite scurrilous reports to the contrary [huffingtonpost.com]) on the Obama/Biden campaign website: [change.gov]
The politician said it, I believe it, that settles it.
Some Salient Points (Score:5, Informative)
Here are a few key points from the original story in The Daily Caller [dailycaller.com]:
Warrant Basis:
The document notes that her husband, Paul Flanagan, was found guilty in 1986 to resisting arrest in Prince George's County. The warrant called for police to search the residence they share and seize all weapons and ammunition because he is prohibited under the law from possessing firearms.
Militarization of Police Angle:
At about 4:30 a.m. on Aug. 6, Hudson said officers dressed in full body armor presented a search warrant to enter the home she shares on the bay with her husband. She estimates that at least seven officers took part in the raid.
Document Seizure Justification:
Diaz explained that the files were taken because they found official government papers, which Hudson had obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request.
"During the course of the search, the CGIS agent discovered government documents labeled FOUO - For Official Use Only (FOUO) - and LES - Law Enforcement Sensitive. The files that contained these documents were cataloged on the search warrant inventory and taken from the premises," Diaz said.
"The documents were reviewed with the source agency and determined to be obtained properly through the Freedom of Information Act," he said.
Document Seizure Counterpoint:
But Hudson doesn't buy the explanation: "That explains the one file they took but does not explain why they took four other files with my handwritten and typed interview notes with confidential sources, that I staked my reputation as a journalist to protect under the auspices of the First Amendment of the Constitution," she said.
They Did Have Guns:
During the raid, the officers also went after Hudson's three pistols and three long guns, which she obtained legally.
"I'm a Kentucky girl," she said. "I come kitchen trained, and firearm ready. I grew up with guns and I've always been around guns."
She Is A "Real" Reporter:
Hudson has been a reporter in Washington, D.C. for nearly 15 years and was nominated twice by The Washington Times for the Pulitzer Prize. She is a freelancer for Newsmax and the Colorado Observer.
Her Investigative Reporting:
While at the Times, Hudson reported extensively on the air marshal program - specifically about whether Homeland Security officials had lied to Congress and reported protecting more flights than they really were. Using her sources inside the government, Hudson has also reported for years about possible terrorist "dry-runs" on airplanes.
Unlike some other reporters whose sources have been targeted in recent years by the government, Hudson said none of the information she had was classified or given to her by someone who broke the law.
"None of the documents were classified," she said. "There were no laws broken in me obtaining these files."
Re:Incompetence abounds! (Score:5, Insightful)
2. Where can you hide your stuff that law enforcement cannot find it if they try hard enough?
3. The government can find any excuse to raid you if they want (in this case, because in 1986 her husband was found guilty of resisting arrest). And once they do find an excuse, what can you do when an elite, armored team shows up at your doorstep?
There is nothing you as an individual can do to retaliate against this, other than speaking out (as she is doing). If you really want to prevent this from happening, choose to live somewhere else, or just be a nice little citizen and never try to rock the boat.
Re: (Score:3)
If Ann Coulter is associated with it..... I'm NOT
Audrey Hudson writes for Newsmax and formerly for the Washington Times. The story has appeared on WND, TheDailyCaller, TheBlaze and other right wing sites. It is being studiously ignored by all other Western media, as per a Google News search [google.com], just now.
Selective outrage; the jackboots kick in the door on a conservative reporter and you people and your MSM are fine with it.
Re: (Score:3)
Why AC?? Embrace your hate. Be proud of it.
Hate filled people like you are the best argument I can imagine for an unfettered 2nd Amendment.
Re: (Score:3)
You naive righty vs lefty folks are so blind. The puppet may change but the hands holding the strings are the same. They use issues like abortion and gay rights to divide the population so we can be controlled. United we are dangerous bit it is so easy to get us bickering with each other so we ignore the real threat.