Reporter Phone Records Being Used to Find Leaks 971
jackbird writes "Brian Ross, Chief Investigative Correspondent for ABC news says a confidential source informed him that reporter's phone records are being used by the administration to track down leaks. Apparently reporters for the New York Times, ABC News, and the Washington Post are being scrutinized. The fact that ABC News journalists are even seriously wondering about whether the warning is connected to the NSA's domestic surveillance activities indicates just how anxious many people in Washington have become."
Good stuff! (Score:5, Funny)
Send all these freedom-hating reporters who seek the so-called "truth" to Gitmo!
Re:Good stuff! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Good stuff! (Score:5, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness [wikipedia.org]
The truthiness of this statement is 100%
The most worrying part... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The most worrying part... (Score:3, Funny)
In Soviet Russia, people listen to their government!
A global trend we sure could live without? (Score:3, Informative)
I (heart) Big Brother! (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, having an inside contact at the government is something to hide.
Hmmm, need to update that a little bit. "Those who have no criticism of the government have nothing to fear."
Re:I (heart) Big Brother! (Score:3, Insightful)
I got $20 that says Fox News won't be checked. (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, I'm sure that there are a lot of calls made to "reporters" at Fox News. But I'll bet $20 that we're not going to hear about any phone records of Fox News "reporters" being checked.
Makes you wonder, eh?That's why I put in the "Those who have no criticism of the government have nothing to fear."
If you're "reporting" a "leak" that hurts Bush and Co's political opponents
If you're "reporting" a "leak" that says Bush and Co are doing good
If you're reporting a leak that says Bush and Co are doing something that may be illegal
Re:I (heart) Big Brother! (Score:5, Interesting)
It's worse than even that, actually. What makes you think that people inside the government won't misuse their power and access to information for purely private purposes?
For example: If you run a business and one of your competitors has an inside track to the gatekeepers of this information, I'd say it's time to start worrying...
where's the al-queda connection? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:where's the al-queda connection? (Score:5, Insightful)
IMNSHO, this is one of the scariest things that has happened in the US in my lifetime.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What they are doing doesn't require the NSA (Score:5, Interesting)
The fact is that when Gonzales told us that the NSA only listens to international calls he didn't take an oath [thinkprogress.org], and that he later rescinded or re-qualified much of his testimony [washingtonpost.com], in particular making the point that although one particlar intelligence program involved listening to international calls, a certain gigantic multi-billion dollar signals-intelligence agency might actually be running more than one signals-gathering program. (Like, whoa, seriously?)
To attach the name "fact" to information obtained under such circumstances is, I think, very, very optimistic, in a sense.
The fact is that Bush has told us bald-faced lies [blogcritics.org] about domestic spying activities, and at this point it would require a hearty steaming ladle-full of naivete to imagine that the general public now knows the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
The fact is that the Bush administration has aptly demonstrated that it simply cannot be trusted, and the sorry fact is that we can be certain of precious little beyond that.
The fact is, recognizing these facts does not constitute "fanaticism." I believe there's a saying down in Texas: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again."
Ah Ain't No Crook (Score:5, Insightful)
Is there any oversight of this program whatsoever?
MOD PARENT UP (Score:5, Insightful)
There is not reply to this other than 'we don't think the president would do this'
Well... "conservatives"... this wasn't the point of founding this country What about the next president, or the one after that... still trust them?
Re:Oh, but ... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Ah Ain't No Crook (Score:4, Insightful)
Ah, OK, Now I see how you know the trustworthiness of the next president. I forgot about that. Diebold. LOL.
Re:Ah Ain't No Crook (Score:5, Insightful)
The justice department attempted to investigate the NSA spying program, but they were denied a security clearance [msn.com]. With this sort of political climate, the public has to rely on leaks from people inside to even know what's going on.
Re:Ah Ain't No Crook (Score:5, Interesting)
Forget that... the Congress has to rely on leaks to know what's going on! Only 4 of the 535 members were briefed on the domestic/international warrant-less wiretaps. Who knows how many were briefed on this new privacy invasion.
Re:Ah Ain't No Crook (Score:5, Insightful)
The JD (Governement) was denied a security clearance to investigate the wired taping by the NSA (a Governement's agency)?
WTF???
I am dreaming this or what?
Re:Ah Ain't No Crook (Score:5, Insightful)
There's still this mentality out there that no matter how much Bush seems to suck, nothing *really wrong* can happen with the US government simply because "this is America," and anyone who says that we're in dire straits is really just a black helicopters tinfoil hat freak.
And all the while, the black helicopters are gathering overhead and the supply of tinfoil to make hats has been silently cut off. Things really are very bad right now (do a little more research into these cases, and into the name Russell Tice, you'll be shocked at what you find) but the public is absolutely unaware of it, and because "big media" won't panic, they refuse to think anyone who does panic is sane.
The best thing any of us can do is go to friends and family who trust our judgment and tell them that things are very, very bad with the US government right now and the 2006 election *may actually be* the last possible turning point, beyond which there is no return.
This genie is not going back in the bottle. We are stuck with these departments and a national information gathering infrastructure that is not only monitoring citizens phones, positions (via cell phone tracking), and habits (via bank/credit account tracking), but that is also strong enough to simply leave 99% of congress in the dark about such operations, and to simply brush off official investigations when the remaining 1% get freaked about what they *do* know.
But what we can do is decide to try to acknowledge and control the genie by selecting the next administration(s) carefully with our votes, rather than conceding to the genie's assurances that genie's don't exist, that nobody that seems to be missing is actually missing, that nobody *really* needs a trial, that torture and secret detention aren't *really* all that bad...
Re:Ah Ain't No Crook (Score:5, Insightful)
When only 65% of you even bother to register to vote, and of those only 62% actually vote (totallying about 35% of America)... It's really sad that it only takes ~18% of the population to elect a President.
And you like to think you're defending democracy, when your same country who is indifferent to it.
You're seeing the oversight in action (Score:5, Insightful)
They're also taking a good-sized risk of winding up in an unmarked jail cell, or grave.
They're good people, they are saying "this is out of control and the citizenry must not take it any more".
Re:You're seeing the oversight in action (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree completely, though, that when civil servants take this kind of a risk, something is decidedly rotten...and whoever is doing this leaking is going to go through absolute hell should they ever be found out.
oversight (Score:5, Insightful)
And no, there is no oversight. That is the statutory role of the FISA court, whose creation was in direct response to the preceived need for warrantless surveillance. This court was avoided precisely because the true scope of this fishing expedition is in direct violation of the 4th Amendment, as the court would have informed Cheney, Hayden, Gonzalez, et. al. directly and in no uncertain terms.
Dubya makes Tricky Dick look like a patsy. These actions have threatened the foundation of the Republic and as they have sown, so shall they reap. Far from strengthening authority, they are challenging American's respect for it; this will not be without consequences for the health of our political system. Let's not forget that the *malaise* of the Carter years was largely a consequence of the betrayal of America's trust in civil institutions by a sitting President.
Ignorance is Strength (Score:5, Funny)
If leakers are allowed to reveal to reporters how incompetent, corrupt, and dishonest our leaders are, the terrorists have won.
[/searing sarcasm]
"There is no crime in the Soviet Union" (Score:5, Insightful)
The point is this: leaks, crime, terrorism, etc. are a REQUIRED side effect of freedom. Americans will never get that, and will be happy to toss liberty away in order to prevent nebulous bad things from happening.
The United States is truly starting to resemble the old Soviet Union in so many ways. The Soviets had official state media; we have totally co-opted media outlets. The Soviets had strong controls on copy machines; we have DRM'd/watermarked copy machines (and output devices). The Soviets had one party rule; we have outright one party rule right now, which stemmed from effective one-party rule of the past (seems that the Democratic-Republican party has split, and one side came out on top). The Soviets had no expectation of privacy... and soon, neither will we.
The big difference is that the Soviets used an iron fist, as opposed to the USA's velvet glove, to smother freedom. The net result is the same.
Re:AC/Paris, a few corrections and some info for y (Score:5, Interesting)
You first.
Here's a fantasy: There was a substantive threat to the United States in Iraq.
Here's another: There was anybody in Iraq that had anything to do with your craters, either directly or indirectly.
Here's yet another: Iraq's WMD program was far enough advanced to represent a clear and present danger to the United States, either from Iraq itself or from nuclear-weapon-wielding terrorists.
Here's a new one: Iran's nuclear ambitions represent enough of a substantive threat to the United States to necessitate military action.
Apparently you haven't been paying attention.
Re:AC/Paris, a few corrections and some info for y (Score:5, Insightful)
Some serious overreaction. (Score:5, Insightful)
At the same time, don't assume that I have no experience with this - I lived three blocks north of the WTC that day. I've had relatives die in the towers. I was evacuated. I'll probably suffer from some exotic respiratory illness in the future, thanks to the EPA's lies. I think that I can safely say that I've had my life touched by terrorism. I only mention it because you infer that somehow being a victim makes your arguement more relevant. It doesn't.
That being said: We live in a country where roughly 20,000 citizens are murdered, mostly by their fellow citizens, yearly. I'm sure that I can come up with many other salient figures, but let's stay with good old murder. So, 20k died in 2001, and every year since then. 100k dead because of the murderers.
Imagine if Bush had declared a War on Murder. We're going to do the following:
* Spend a trillion dollars, to rebuild lots and lots of stuff in major cities.
* Monitor the phones of all Americans. Without warrants.
* Have forced, unpaid overtime for all law-enforcement officials. Oh, and they cannot retire, either.
* Have private security forces, on the government payroll, also doing stuff. Except that they're unaccountable to anyone, so they do a lot of bad stuff.
* Put "known murderer associates" in prison, no trial, no representation.
* Torture said "known murderer associates" for information regarding the murderers.
This is a pretty direct analogy.
But, remember - we're going to end murder, right? We're going to Win the War on Murder! Mission Accomplished!
Yeah. Americans would never, ever allow this. It'd never happen. *You* probably wouldn't want it to happen.
Of course, the average American is much more likely to be murdered "normally" than as a result of terrorism. Hell, they're much more likely to be killed by their husband, wife, parent, friend, lover, neighbor - really, anyone BESIDES a "terrorist". So, what rights should we give up to stop these killers?
Please don't tell me about substantive threats. There are many threats to the safety and security of American citizens, but terrorism doesn't merit the supposed cure that this administration wants to foist on the people.
jh
Re:AC/Paris, a few corrections and some info for y (Score:5, Insightful)
Umm, there are some craters in NYC and PA and a lot of relatives of dead people that differ with you on your opinion of "nebulous". One of them is a firefighter cousin of mine.
There is a substantive threat out there, and all the naysaying you put forth doesnt change it. Please start dealing with reality, not fantasy.
Whats important is that we do recoginize that there is a threat and as a nation PUBLICLY decide what we are going to do about it. Pretending its not there and we can go back to 1996 isn't going to work (thats your mistkae). Neither is hiding all our efforts under blanket secrecy to prevent such a thing from happening (thats Bush's mistake).
For starters, you're jumping to one hell of a conclusion by conflating my opposition to how our government is handling the terror threat with me somehow sticking my head in the sand and pretending that the whole wide world simply wuvs us and wouldn't hurt a hair on our heads. I don't think we should "go back" to ignoring terrorism. I also don't think that we're tackling the problem in the right fashion, either--and I get rather exercised by people who suggest that my failure to support the battle as it is currently being waged is, by extension, a failure to grasp the gravity of the situation.
I do take terrorism seriously, and frankly, I think the administration is making us far, far more enemies than allies in this regard. Nearly five years after 9/11, most of the world harbors dislike for our nation and our policies; startlingly large chunks of certain regions absolutely, vehemently abhor us, and actively wish to cause us harm. Tough talk about evil regimes and no negotiating with rogue nations looks good for the cameras, but it is simply unsustainable in the long term. Our military has been running at capacity with stop-loss orders for several years now, we're "meeting" reduced recruiting goals, and the crown jewel of our global offensive on terror is in an active civil war that we are pretty much powerless to stop--all we can do is supress it somewhat. On the international front, we've engaged in so much saber-rattling, "don't-fuck-with-us-we're-crazy"-style foreign relations that our allies are distancing themselves from us, and our enemies are starting to call our bluff. Our hands are pretty much tied when it comes to Iran, with our choices being largely restricted to "hope the EU 3 make a breakthrough" and "full war". We recently taught the Palestineans a valuable lesson about democracy in this brave new world: if you don't elect who we want you to elect, you'll pay dearly for it. North Korea is off the diplomatic radar again, since we're spending most of our diplomatic energy on keeping Iraq's civil war from erupting completely. Our president's staunchest ally is absolutely loathed by his populace and is on his way out. Our alliance with Pakistan will last only so long as the US-friendly military junta remains in power; a popular uprising would be all too happy to cut ties with America. Good 'ol "Pootie Poot" is finally showing his colors, which look something different from when he was chumming it with our president those years ago. Venezuela, should have been a fairly minor diplomatic thorn in our side, has turned into a full-scale pissing match between two men too proud to have anything short of their way. Even Afghanistan is still in limbo, with the Taliban making a limited resurgence and various warlords cum politicos jockeying for power.
How, exactly, is this the profile of a nation that is winning a struggle against international terrorism?
I care about national security. I care about combating terrorism. I also get a little ticked when people accuse me of living in a fantasy land simply because I think we're not going about things the right way. Since 9/11, I've lived in DC and Baltimore. I lived smack in the middle of the DC Sniper. If you think I spent those da
A shock? (Score:3, Insightful)
Other sources have told us that phone calls and contacts by reporters for ABC News, along with the New York Times and the Washington Post, are being examined as part of a widespread CIA leak investigation.
Come on. Brian Ross, big time investigative journalist for ABC News, didn't realize that this was an issue until now? Even before the revelations about the NSA it would have been prudent to avoid using the samephone to contact informants or have them contact you. Pay phones, throwaway cell phones, heck even courtesy phones in hotel lobbies -- I could see them using all sorts of phones to get in touch with people, so as not to leave a visible trail. After all, phone records are accessible legally by the cops, and they could certainly pull phone records for a reporter if they thought the reporter was involved in something nefarious, though I believe they require a warrant (IANAL).
And for those of you naive enough to believe that because all the NSA is getting is phone numbers, perhaps the phrase "reverse lookup" has not passed your ear recently, but nowadays you can even do it through Google. Privacy is tissue-paper compared to what it used to be. I suspect an unlisted number isn't even really unlisted anymore.
Remember When . . . (Score:3, Insightful)
Though leaking classified information is obviously somehting to be concerned about, this sounds more like someone's casting a wide net to try and catch a few fish. It's the kind of thing that's ripe for abuse, and smells like an unwarranted search and siezure (of data).
So, what will next week bring? All our phones are tapped? It seems every week or so things get worse . . .
What a surprise... (Score:5, Insightful)
I have no problem with the government obtaining a warrant to get this information. But that's not what they've done. What they've done is about as good as tapping phones. Anyone who sees it differently has WAY too much trust of the U.S. government.
And I know that they'll argue that these leaks somehow put us in danger of a terrorist attack. I mean, if the subject had been something as mundane as outting a CIA operative, then of course, they'd be sure to overlook it, particularly if the leak came out of the offices of the President and Vice President.
It amazes me that people aren't yelling and screaming about this and marching in front of the White House. People in this country have become too complacent and they're going to lose the freedoms that so many people have died to protect over the years. And when it comes to that, we'll have nobody to blame but ourselves.
We can blame Bush and his administration, but when it comes down to it, they're not to blame. Because we know what they're doing and we're not kicking their asses out on the street.
Re:What a surprise... (Score:5, Informative)
I'll be right behind you. Go, march, at LEAST yell and scream. Donate to the EFF [eff.org]. CALL your representatives, city, state, and federal. If you already have, choose one and do it again. Once is not always enough.
Re:What a surprise... (Score:4, Insightful)
More than 11 million people protested in cities throughout the world to oppose an invasion of Iraq. Bush dismissed the protests, saying that he doesn't "decide policy based upon a focus group."
I don't think yelling and screaming will do much now, other than get yourself fast-tracked to the front of "Some List" that you probably don't want to be on at all.
Nixon was an amateur (Score:5, Insightful)
How awfully nice to have the technology to spy on everyone in the country at once, and sufficiently rabid supporters to shout down anyone who questions the practice.
Posted to the site's blogger's comment area (Score:4, Insightful)
Read the ABC blog comments (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't they realize that those are the attitudes that allowed Hitler and Stalin to operate? (And don't give me any lip about Goodwin's Law. This is serious.) I'm absolutely floored by folks who would like nothing better than to live in a police state coocoon when it's "their people in charge," but then scream bloody murder if "the wrong people" hold power. They just can't see that this attitude makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE. Give the government an inch and they will take a mile, always. There is ALWAYS someone out there who wants more power, and it is our duty to ensure they cannot take it, whether we agree with them ideologically or not.
Re:Read the ABC blog comments (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course they do. An integral part of authoritarian regiemes is their willingness to share a portion of their absolute power with anyone willing to following their ideals and serve up their neighbours on a plate. Sycophants profit enourmously under dictatorships, and their unscrupulous devotion is just what tyrannical regiemes need to stay in power.
For a fresher look at this, read "Wild Swans" by Jung Chang for a good example of just how much the most twisted and unscrupulous of people profit when repression is required. Jung's father, a regional commander of extremely high principles and integrity, is almost beaten to death and hounded during the cultural revolution. Meanwhile, various people who you wouldn't trust as far as you could throw, continue to rise up the ranks and reel in the dough. Most notably a husband, wife pair known as the Tings, though they did eventually get ousted when they went altogether too far.
Basically, in a dictatorship, the most toxic and evil elements of society finally rise to the top and take their pleasure in stamping on the necks of all those under them. This is why dicatorships succeed. Not because of enigmatic leaders, weighty ideaologies or rhetoric; but because there are all too many willing to lick the tyrants boot so that the rest of us in turn might lick theirs.
Stop using soldiers to hide bad policy (Score:5, Insightful)
Bottom line: if guaranteeing the 1st and 4th amendments (free press and unreasonable searches, for those of you who slept through Civics class) means we lose a few good guys, then that's the cost of doing business. Cold, but true.
And, for all the chickenhawks out there who use soldiers as shields for illegal acts-- to quote my favorite actor, "Pick up a rifle and stand a post."
Does The Constitution Still Matter? (Score:4, Informative)
There are no exceptions to this - not even 'national security'.
Of course if The Constitution is considered merely to be a 'Goddamned Piece of Paper', as Bush has described it, and if the people who are involved in violating The Constitution don't care about adhering to it, then all bets are off, which is pretty much where we in the US are at these days.
Why you U.S. Citizens are not fighting back ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Arent these YOUR rights ? Why arent you fighting back ? Isnt being ripped off your rights by your government similar to being ripped off your rights by a foreign power, like in 1774 ?
Re:lives are at stake with leaks. (Score:3, Insightful)
Most "leaks" are on purpose to manipulate the press into covering something the administration wants them to cover. It's pretty hypocritical for this same administration to then punish those members of the press who were doing their bidding.
Re:lives are at stake with leaks. (Score:5, Funny)
Don't be so quick to discount the possibility that the reporter might be an Al Kaida affiliate. The Bush Administration said they were only data mining phone logs of Americans to go after Al Kaida, so if they're focused on a journalist, that journalist is probably an associate of the terrorists. {cough}
Don't Panic! If you're not a reporter, you have nothing to fear from the government!
Re:lives are at stake with leaks. (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Secret CIA prisons in Eastern Europe
2) Warrantless taps on calls going into and out of the US by the NSA
3) Database of American call records assembled by the NSA
4) Monitoring of reporters phone calls by as yet unnamed federal agency
5) Identifying CIA case officer to scare a whistle blower
So far, Novak is the only "journalist" who has put anyone in potential danger, and we know the leak came out of the Vice President's office.
Re:lives are at stake with leaks. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:lives are at stake with leaks. (Score:4, Interesting)
Put agents *actually* in the field at risk
How? How does it put individual agents at risk?
. . . puts Europeans at risk in the event that terrorists attempt a rescue . .
I think you watch too many movies.
2) . . . 3) . . . 4) . . .
Put American service members and civilians at risk by interfering with legitimate intelligence operations.
Overly broad, and you're ignoring that persons on US soil have Constitutional protections, regardless of whether or not the end result is criminal prosecution. If you're going to engage in domestic spying, you need effective oversight from the other two branches of government. If the executive branch deceives the other branches, then the American people's only recourse is thru oversight by the press.
Basically, you're just using a smoke screen. Why not take it to the extreme? How many service members' lives could we save if we lived in a complete police state where the executive could do whatever it wished?
You're basically saying, "In theory", and I'm not willing to trade my civil liberties for your "In theory, lives could be put at risk".
5) The only ACTUAL disclosure of an agent's identity, and you say conveniently say that her ID was no longer relevant. Meanwhile, anyone she had contact with could be in danger, regardless of whether or not she was their case officer. Innocent people might come to harm, let alone filed agents. And what sort of effect does this sort of disclosure have on field agents, knowing that your bosses will hang you out to dry, not merely for political expedience, but to attack political critics!
Basically, you can apologize all you want for the Bush administration, but as far as this Republican is concerned, your apology is no longer accepted.
Re:lives are at stake with leaks. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:lives are at stake with leaks. (Score:5, Insightful)
Ohh hey, you have a bit of Kool Aid on your chin, might want to wash that off.
look at both ends of that phoneline, bicches! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:look at both ends of that phoneline, bicches! (Score:4, Funny)
There's a greeting card for that?
What's it say? "We know who is wishing you a Happy Birthday!" ??
You know who the enemy is? (Score:5, Insightful)
They are a threat to Americans, our way of life, and our democracy.
They are a national security threat.
So are their defenders.
Re:lives are at stake with leaks. (Score:5, Insightful)
Your "zomg it's classified information nub!" argument almost holds water, until you realize that there is a Judicial branch of the government meant to oversee these types of activities specifically to prevent abuse by the Executive. If the Executive is willing to get court orders to do this type of monitoring, then it's within the letter of the law, else it's just abuse of power to stop dwindling poll numbers.
But keep on listening to the spin and disregard the law, because our National Security is at stake..
Re:lives are at stake with leaks. (Score:5, Funny)
My point, and my only point, is that the leakers knew the consequences of what they were doing
Which was followed by:
If they believe what they were doing is right, why do they hide?
Why in the hell would someone openly try to be punished for doing the right thing from those who are doing wrong or evil? Have you ever heard of the Witness Protection Program? Why do you think they hide witnesses?
Guess people shouldn't expect someone with a sig of "666" to understand right from wrong or complex subjects like morality.
Re:lives are at stake with leaks. (Score:5, Insightful)
I for one don't believe that an oath to secrecy trumps the constitution, or the risk of the destruction of our nation from corruption. Obviously the people releasing this information agree. They believe that our rights and freedoms are more important than keeping damaging secrets. They of all people would know that the goings on that we're not aware of are more damaging to our nation than they are helping. They wouldn't release it otherwise.
Re:lives are at stake with leaks. (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a standing rule in the military that you don't carry out illegal orders from your commanding officer. No Western military tribunal will accept the excuse "I was just following orders." This is because morality can't be put down in a book as a list of numbered, sanctioned rules - we would always miss at least one (and more likely miss thousands).
Soldiers are not expected to be machines, contrary to popular belief; they have to morally evaluate the orders they are given, because it is their responsibility to stand up and say "NO!" if they are given an illegal order (like "Ok, let's take some embarassing pictures of some of our prisoners over there. Say cheese!").
Every American citizen has the same responsibility, ESPECIALLY those with security clearances. It is often only they that will ever be aware of abuses being carried out by our government. There are no hard and fast rules for recognizing unethical or immoral behavior; it is up to us, as moral, thinking beings, to figure it out.
Re:lives are at stake with leaks; oaths of service (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:lives are at stake with leaks. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:lives are at stake with leaks. (Score:5, Insightful)
I expect that Nixon felt that the leaks which exposed Watergate were threats to national security, and would have stopped them if they could. No administration is happy to have their corruption or other illegal activities released to the media, but if we allowed the government to do whatever they think is necessary, then we are pretty much guaranteeing that they will do things which are not authorized under the Constitution.
Look, I am a Republican myself, and am very politically active. It doesn't matter whether the President is a Republican or a Democrat, both parties are capable of horrendus corruption when they don't have the media actively trying to keep the public informed. I won't hesitate when stating that I am not comfortable with the activities that Bush has gotten involved in lately, but I am confident that if we allow the public to know as much as is possible about what is going on, it will serve as a check upon his powers. This will also encourage him to think twice before he does something really raw...
Allowing the administration to hide behind the cover of "national security" is very dangerous.
Finally, does anyone else see the irony in the Bush Administration going through phone records to identify who leaked the stories which exposed their program of going through people's phone records?
Re:lives are at stake with leaks. (Score:5, Insightful)
Frankly, if it is true that the administration is monitoring the calls of reporters, the mind boggles (and yes, the irony increases the boggle). It's insane and stupid that they'd do this at this time. I once thought that Clinton was the epitome of arrogance during the Lewinsky scandal, but this is so much worse. What are they thinking?
Re:lives are at stake with leaks. (Score:4, Interesting)
Try on Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, and Ronald Reagan for size. You might not agree with their politics, but they were giants, especially in comparison to the moral midget we currently have occupying the oval office.
Re:lives are at stake with leaks. (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, that's the path that Sibel Edmonds followed:
But what happened to this rule-follower?
Certainly she didn't just give up did she?
So, following the rules, a translator reports the fact that her supervisor is inept, that there might be compromised agents in the FBI and that some of the materials involved in 9/11 were translated improperly and what happens? She gets fired. She follows the legal option and the Bush administration uses the State Secres Privelage to have her case dismissed entirely.
Seriously, if you were riding on a bus and the driver were drunk, wouldn't you want someone to say something? Or would you rather they wait and call headquarters at the next stop?
Source article [http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/18828res200
Re:lives are at stake with leaks. (Score:5, Insightful)
Step 1: Government does something unconstitutional.
Step 2: Government classifies the fact that it did that thing.
Step 3: Someone with both clearance and a conscience exposes said unconstitutional act, so that they responsible parties might be brought to justice.
*YES* he said it couldnt be done, no matter how you looked at it. But I showed that it could be done!!! go ME!!!!
*self-five*
In all seriousness, however, if you'd like to chime back in and answer how the fuck exposing an unconstitutional domestic spying operatin by the government is going to directly lead to the death of servicemen abroad, I'd like to hear it. This is nothing like a leak exposing an undercover operative who had worked abroad. *cough* this is a domestic operation, engaged in primarily by hackers at computer terminals.
The inviolable nature of the "state security" cry is necessary only in so far as it is justifiably used. Given this, and most other, administration's complete lack of credibility, I will automatically call bullshit when they invoke state security to avoid explaining something illegal/embarrasing they have done to us.
Just to preempt the "well, if we dont unconstitutionally spy on our own populace, we'll have incomplete intell, and our servicemen will walk into ambushes, and terrorists will bomb every major american city into rubble" argument: The ends to not justify the means.
That is why we have a constitution guaranteeing certain freedoms from government oppression.
That is why we are supposedly better than the terrorists: We consider certain actions beneath us.
Again, BULLSHIT! (Score:5, Insightful)
There is nothing "illegal" about dis-obeying an illegal order. FUCK!!! Didn't we go through that sufficiently back at the Nurnberg Trials?
There is nothing "illegal" about telling someone that you were given an illegal order.
If the order / operation is ILLEGAL then refusing it or revealing it cannot be illegal.Get a fucking clue you ass-sucking moron!
Look up the "Witness Protection Program". We have a long history of protecting people who broke illegal oaths to reveal the facts and who didn't want to "face the consequences" that criminals would like to bring down upon them.
Why do you want them to suffer just because the CRIMINALS are part of the GOVERNMENT?
Oh, it's because you don't want them to reveal the lies in the first place, isn't it?
Re:Bullshit. Illegal orders are not protected. (Score:4, Insightful)
When the secret activity is illegal activity, then the oath no longer holds legal force. In fact, not breaking an oath might be seen as illegal, as it is engaging in a cover up of an illegal act. If there had been proper judicial and congressional oversight of the activity, we could then have some confidence that the activity was not illegal. Since the Bush Administration has intentionally hid these activities from oversight, it's not unreasonable to doubt their legality.
Re:lives are at stake with leaks. (Score:5, Insightful)
So you'd rather that Watergate never happened because Deep Throat was thrown in jail?
Re:lives are at stake with leaks. (Score:3, Insightful)
The Press should be the ally of the People. (Score:5, Interesting)
When the Government considers the Press to be the Enemy, that means that the Government considers an ally of the People to be the Enemy.
That's one step away from considering the People to be the Enemy of the Government.
Wrong. (Score:3, Insightful)
Read the fucking constitution and look up some judicial records before you open your
Re:Wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
Well said, and to the grandparent, I would go a step further.
Even if/when you can trust the gov't, it is your duty as a US Citizen to not trust the government. Try reading the Declaration of Independance sometime. It makes it pretty clear that your obligation as a citizen of this great nation is to defend it against all aggressors, foreign and domestic. Defend the nation, not the government. It is not necessary now (IMO), but may someday become necessary to defend this nation against the government, just as was done in 1776. The media is the fourth estate that guarantees that it is possible for us to know when we must fulfill that duty.
To make it more explicit, while I do not know nor automatically believe that such is the case here, any attempt to prevent the media from fulfilling their role as the fourth estate is every bit as treasonous as trying to short-circuit one of the three branches of government.
If you don't feel you can live up to this obligation, you are not required to stay in this country. Our Founding Fathers had some very big and difficult goals. It is times like these that test our resolve to live up to their ideals.
Re:Wrong. (Score:5, Informative)
Ahem.
The article you cite says "De Vries [the CIA-abuse denier] came under sharp criticism from the EU parliamentarians for refusing to consider earlier testimonies from a German and a Canadian who described to the committee how they were kidnapped and imprisoned by foreign agents, and from a former British ambassador to Uzbekistan who alleged that British intelligence services used information obtained under torture".
Asserting that the EU investigated and found no proof of CIA kidnapping may have a comforting feel of "truthiness [wikipedia.org]" for you, but I'm afraid that reality once again is showing a liberal bias [dailykos.com].
Re:lives are at stake with leaks. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:lives are at stake with leaks. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:lives are at stake with leaks. (Score:5, Insightful)
The story used to be that we were conducting surveillance by using the FISA courts. Then, it came out that we were actually doing some surveillance without FISA warrants, but it was all overseas. Then, it came out that only one end of a conversation had to be overseas in order for them to perform surveillence without a FISA warrant. Then, it came out that well, we're actually monitoring the telephone traffic of several tens of millions of Americans, but we've got a dang good legal basis that can do fifteen loop-de-loops and a quadruple lutz, depending on what your definition of "is" is--but don't expect us to ever actually justify that in a court of law, because these programs are so very classified that the prosecutors can't be granted the clearance necessary to pursue the cases, sorry.
If you're still willing to give the administration the benefit of the doubt on this matter, I have one helluva deal on a bridge for ya.
Re:lives are at stake with leaks. (Score:3, Insightful)
There has been a media uproar that just didn't take hold on the populace when it was reported earlier this month that the government agencies were posing as citizens to gain the information. It isn't admissible to the court, but do
Re:lives are at stake with leaks. (Score:5, Informative)
I hope you do. Am I the only one that remembers Nixon's enemies list [wikipedia.org]?
The primary issue with all of this news regarding government snooping is oversight. Don't give me this "we're at war," "why do you care if you aren't doing anything wrong" crap. We should have a goverment of checks and balances, which were designed to limit the (almost invariably corrupting) concentration of political power. What happens when the Administration alone gets to decide what constitutes what is "wrong?"
I feel like an alarmist raising the specter of the creep of Totalitarianism [wikipedia.org] in the U.S., but how else do you explain this? Don't feed me the war on terror talking points; consider:
The "I" here is Gustave Gilbert; the respondent is Hermann Goering. [snopes.com]
I realize that by Godwin's Law I've lost this argument already, but if Goering's comments from 60 years ago don't make your spine tingle, what does?
Shocking recollections in spite of Godwin's Law (Score:4, Informative)
Shirer (1959) has this translation [wikipedia.org]:
Re:lives are at stake with leaks. (Score:5, Insightful)
* The CIA running secret prisons in East Europe
* The NSA's illegal and unconstitutional wiretapping of US citizens without oversight
* The CIA secretly extraditing terror suspects (even from non-US nations) to countries which often use torture, such as Egypt and Afghanistan
I don't see how a single life was endangered by any of those leaks. In fact, they seem like perfectly normal whistle-blowing on a Govenment which is grossly overstepping the bounds of the power granted to it, and avoiding the Congressional checks and balances which exist.
But there's one more leak:
* The exposure of Valerie Plame and an entire CIA front company. Now there we have a leak which actually had the potential to endanger lives. But wait.. who was behind that leak? The White House themselves. - And for what? Petty revenge on a critic.
So we've got an administration here who themselves leak classified intel when convenient to them, who harshly persue those whistleblowers who leak anything which might be damaging to the Administration. An administration who misconstrued, misrepresented, and outright lied about intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq War.
And now you expect me to believe that this same Administration, in their quest to find out who's talking to who, is not interested in finding whistleblowers and critics, but rather acting purely out of an interest of protecting national security and saving lives?
Bullshit.
No administration has ever used the intelligence community for partisan poltical gain to the extent that the current one has. None. There are people in the intelligence community, be they Democrats, people critical of these wiretaps, or simply professionals who are pissed off of having their agency's work misused for partisan political goals, and then being the scapegoat once things turn sour. What this bullshit is about is nothing less than an attempt by the administration to purge the agencies of these critics.
It is not about national security. It's not about saving lives. People working in intelligence don't look kindly on that kind of leaks. It is their lives which are at stake. But leaking the fact that they're secretly running prisons - knowledge of that is NOT a threat to national security or lives in the intelligence community.
The only thing that knowledge threatens is the political goals of the Bush administration. If that's what they're going to use the CIA for, then I fully support any CIA employee who does the moral thing and tells the American people what the heck their government is up to behind their backs. Those people are not leakers and traitors. They are heroes and patriots.
What's scary are the comments left on the ABC blog (Score:5, Informative)
You know, we spend a lot of time teaching our children about the men that founded this country, however flawed personally they were, and the ideals they believed in. Maybe it's time we actually stood by those words.
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Benjamin Franklin
Quotes from ABC News Blog by members of the public:
"Good! I hope they do find out who is leaking national security info to the press. I'm tired of the press helping our enemies. Maybe you guys should start trying to "FOR the USA" instead of "AGAINST the USA" ALL THE TIME. I hope the FBI nails lots of idiots who are out to destroy the intelligence agencies and cost us more soldiers and spys!"
"'Bout time you guys are roped in."
"Excellent the Media needs looking after, Traitors most of them......."
"good, you seditionist creeps deserve what you get. who knows how many serviceman have died because of your "right to know""
"I hope the information they gain allows them to catch the scum that leak information, and helps them arrest the communist scum who publish it."
"Well maybe ABC news better stop leaking classified information. This only helps our enemies and right now I believe ABC news is an enemy of the US."
"You didn't inconvenience someone, you broke the law. It's called a criminal investigation!!!!"
"I believe that it is a great idea to maintain telephone surveilance over news organizations who disclose classified and sensitive secret information. Lets nail the government employees who knowingly break their oath to not divulge classified information."
"GOOD! I hope they find out who is reporting all of these leaks. And I hope you are tried and perhaps spend some time in jail for it. KEEP CALLING and I hope they track your every word!"
Re:Apples and Oranges (Score:3, Insightful)
the government under bush is violating both
Re:Apples and Oranges (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you sure? I'm not.
Re:Apples and Oranges (Score:5, Informative)
You remember the Pentagon Papers?
Daniel Ellsberg, a former Marine and a researcher for the RAND corporation surreptitiously copied "the Pentagon Papers", a multi-volume history of the U.S. involvement in Vietnam. Hoping to inform the American public of U.S. mistakes in Vietnam, Ellsberg then released the papers to the New York Times.
President Nixon attempted, on national security grounds, to halt their publication. When the Supreme Court declined to uphold the suppression of the papers, Nixon ordered G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt to break in to Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office, hoping to find information with which to publicly smear Ellsberg.
That break-in, and the others that followed at the Watergate Building, became known as the Watergate conspiracy.
It also destroyed the government's case against Ellsberg: because of the break-in and an allegation that Nixon had ordered the CIA to "totally incapacitate" (e.g., kill) Ellsberg, the government's case against Ellsberg for conspiracy and espionage was dropped.
Re:Haha.. (Score:5, Informative)
You mean how Bush outed Plame and thus caused the undercover company that watched Iran's nukes to fold? That kind of leak?
Re:Haha.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Plain and simple, this is a way for the powers-that-be to clamp down on news that makes them look bad.
Re:Haha.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Every time the New York Times or the Washington Post leaks about some secret program that is used in the war on terror, therefor invalidating it, I wonder to myself if they will take responsibility for the next terrorist attack.
God Forbid the terrorists be blamed for the attacks. Much better to use the fear of terrorism to fight against whatever political beliefs you disagree with, right?
Man, they've sure taught you well haven't they...
Re:Haha.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, because media that's critical of the government is a cornerstone of communist regimes.
Re:Nothing to see Here.... move along (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly.. when you have a warrant or subpoena. Neither of which they have now.
Re:Nothing to see Here.... move along (Score:5, Insightful)
Subpeona? Search warrant? Crime or no crime, this article makes no mention of those. Have you been reading the news lately?
Standard Police procedure (Score:5, Insightful)
Somehow, I doubt the administration bothered with technicalities like "warrants".
Re:Standard Police procedure (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Nothing to see Here.... move along (Score:3, Insightful)
It sure is. Do you think the reporters involved have top-secret clearance and are the ones who leaked the information? The information was leaked to the reportes, not by the reporters. If somebody on the inside broke the law, they should be investigated, tried, and punnished if found guilty. The first person in line should be GW. Not only does he leak when it is convenient, but he's broke most of the other laws of our country.
Re:Wrong again. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nothing to see Here.... move along (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Great! (Score:3, Insightful)
Calling them traitors and claiming they are putting troops at danger is flat out intentional ignorance. Mainly, because none of this has anything to do with our troops in Iraq. So, while it makes a great sound bite to the folks too lazy to take a moment to use their own brains to come to a conclusion, it simply makes you look like an idiot to the rest of us who bother to figure
Re:SF-312 Nondisclosure Agreement (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree with part of your statement: It's high time this administration be brought to justice.
Re:Suprise Hat (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with your statement is that this database, like so many others, was developed for a good reason: streamlined, more accurate billing, and fraud detection. The problem, just like with guns, writable DVDs, and UWB scanners is most often in the way the technology is used, not in what it is. How do you separate the legitimate need from the abusive one? How do you separate knowledge of nucleonics that tells us how our Sun works from that which lets us construct bombs?
This is what law is for. This is also why government oversite exists. Both have failed.
Re:Quick Question (Score:4, Informative)
1) The IRS is collecting information openly, with the acquiescence, albeit grudging, of the American people.
2) The IRS' use of the collected information is constrained by law, and they follow those rules.
3) The IRS' activity is monitored by Congress, which can and does call IRS officials to account for the actions of the agency.
Get it now?