US Secretly Issued Subpoena To Access Reporter's Phone Records (theguardian.com) 89
The US justice department secretly issued a subpoena to gain access to details of the phone account of a Guardian reporter as part of an aggressive leak investigation into media stories about an official inquiry into the Trump administration's child separation policy at the southern border. From a report: Leak investigators issued the subpoena to obtain the phone number of Stephanie Kirchgaessner, the Guardian's investigations correspondent in Washington. The move was carried out without notifying the newspaper or its reporter, as part of an attempt to ferret out the source of media articles about a review into family separation conducted by the Department of Justice's inspector general, Michael Horowitz. It is highly unusual for US government officials to obtain a journalist's phone details in this way, especially when no national security or classified information is involved. The move was all the more surprising in that it came from the DoJ's inspector general's office -- the watchdog responsible for ethical oversight and whistleblower protections. Katharine Viner, the Guardian's editor-in-chief, decried the action as "an egregious example of infringement on press freedom and public interest journalism by the US Department of Justice."
The US is definitely not. . . (Score:3)
Re: The US is definitely not. . . (Score:5, Informative)
It isn't that unusual apparently. This exactly what was done to Project Veritas last winter. Oh but that was even better because the FBI was leaking some of the take to the New York Times..you know ....the paper that PV is suing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: The US is definitely not. . . (Score:4, Insightful)
There's a little difference. Project Veritas [wikipedia.org] is a propaganda organisation (for a left wing equivalent, maybe the Democratic Socialists of America [dsausa.org] or alternatively a Conservative / anti-Trump / pro-America equivalent think the Lincoln Project [lincolnproject.us]) being investigated for being a criminal organisation [independent.co.uk] itself. That would make a warrant a legitimate thing. The Guardian on the other hand were not accused of any crime and is a journalistic organisation. Journalists are supposed to be especially protected against warrants on their work to ensure that first amendment right are ensured.
That doesn't make leaking recordings from an ongoing investigation legal of course. If Project Veritas was a project attempting to undermine people's understanding of the truth, however, someone might feel it's the morally right thing to do. Alternatively, someone might try to undermine the investigation by leaking that.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Right... because their political opposition says so. NVM that their propaganda tends to be true. Which is the entire point of the first amendment, nobody gets to single out sources and paint them as journalists/propoganda based on their own biases and opinions on source credibility/expertise.
They certainly convey more accurate pictures than propoganda organizations like the NYT, Washington Post, CNN, etc and the Guard
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
because their political opposition says so.
You have that backwards. Their political opposition says it, because that's what they are.
Project Veritas is the mouthpiece of James O'Keefe, the piece of shit who cut apart a bunch of gotcha videos in order to make Acorn look bad. One of his victims sued, got $200k from him and a court mandated apology, but it was too late for Acorn and by that point Fox News had already turned him into a wingnut hero.
O'Keefe's MO is to shoot a bunch of video and then chop it up to make it look like whatever he wants
Re: The US is definitely not. . . (Score:2, Informative)
The administration prosecuted Stephen Kim, a former State Department official, merely for discussing a classified report about North Korea with Fox News reporter James Rosen.
In addition to its vendetta against whistleblowers, Obamaâ(TM)s administration waged a robust campaign to harass and intimidate journalists, even mainstream journalists, who utilized leaked material. In May 2013, the Justice Department seized the records of phone lines that Associated Press employees used. AP confirmed that the records were from personal home and cell phones of reporters and editors, as well as phones that AP used in the press quarters of the House of Representatives. The administrationâ(TM)s contempt for the basic requirements of due process was alarming. As CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson noted, such a seizure was "unheard of"
Re: (Score:2)
[whataboutery...] Obummer prosecuted a journalist [blah blah blah whatabout whatabout]
You make the common mistake of treating politics like a football game. It's perfectly possible for both Obama and Trump to have done wrong things. Trump's support for Russia over Ukraine and his holding up weapons was terrible because it gave Russia the idea that Ukraine would not be supported. Obama's setting a red line over chemical weapons and then failing to enforce it was worse; much much worse. I hope that some day it will be possible for American politics to get away from the Republican / Democrat di
Re: The US is definitely not. . . (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The point is that you brought up "Obummer" - if you weren't treating this as a football match. Consider the following
A: Joseph James DeAngelo was a serial killer he should go to jail
B: Shipman killed many more - it seems that in US circles you only care when it's an American.
You should be able to see that B is a total non-sequitur. Both Shipman and DeAngelo are evil murderers and should be in prison. The country they come from doesn't matter. Shipman is completely irrelevant to statement A. Instead of inst
Re: The US is definitely not. . . (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Leaking classified materials IS a crime. Knowing receiving classified information to which you are not authorized IS a crime. The press has enormous freedom to research and publish things the government or at least parts of it would rather keep secret. That does not mean they are entitled to break the law. It does not matter if you are Project Veritas or NY Post, NY Times, UK Guardian or AleRunner on Slashdot.
If a judge agreed there was probable cause to subpoena the phone records, to investigate a crime -
Re: The US is definitely not. . . (Score:4, Insightful)
The press has enormous freedom to research and publish things the government or at least parts of it would rather keep secret. That does not mean they are entitled to break the law.
The press can publish anything it can get it's hands on without being prosecuted. Period, full stop. The press can't break the law to get the material, IE it can't break into someone's computer, or steal files from someone's desk, but if someone gives them something, even if that person obtained it illegally, they can publish it with practically no restrictions or threat of prosecution.
https://www.theatlantic.com/po... [theatlantic.com]
Re: (Score:3)
The two of you just agreed, to an extent. If receiving classified information was illegal, they broke the law, but publishing it is totally allowed. However, the law says you can't transmit classified information - receiving is not your fault. Publishing in a newspaper supersedes that law on a constitutional basis, so publishing is fine.
Investigating a journalist would only help you find the leaker. You wouldn't have anything to punish the journalist for. But investigating the journalist would still b
Re: (Score:1)
Right;
Transmitting though will generally cover you if you a re first or second party. IE 'Hey Journo Dude, I work in the White House where can send theses classified docs to you'
If Journo takes them up on that and provides a place to do a document dump or something that IS a criminal act. Which is why Assange is potentially in a lot of trouble here; he worked with Manning to transmit and receive the material without authorization. On the other hand a journalist hears about wikileaks and goes and gets the
Re: (Score:2)
Now do the Pentagon Papers [britannica.com] which exposed the truth about the Vietnam War and the ability of the US to actually win it.
Frankly, it amazes me how little history people actually study. Yes, it was over 50 years ago but it's still relevant.
On June 30, 1971, in what is regarded as one of the most significant prior-restraint cases in history, the U.S. Supreme Court in a 6–3 decision freed the newspapers to resume publishing the material. The court held that the government had failed to justify restraint of publication.
From the SCOTUS Ruling
“any system of prior restraints comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity” and “the Government thus carries a heavy burden of showing justification for the imposition of such a restraint.” In this case, the government had failed to carry that burden.
Marking something as "classified" or "top-secret" and claiming "National Security" doesn't cut it in all cases. The DOJ, as has been shown with more recent events, lied to FISA judges to obtain warrants. Those are crimes because all affirming a false aff
Re: (Score:2)
I beg your fucking pardon - the DSA is a political party, not a propaganda outlet.
Re: (Score:2)
No it isn't. The members of the DSA that go into congress do that under the Democratic party.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hahaha yeah right the same project veritas that got caught bugging a senators phone line by impersonating a maintenance worker. Yeah real trustworthy guys they are. FYI bugging phones is not "journalism".
Re: (Score:3)
Most of their funding is funneled through a shell corporation - Donors Trust. It sounds like they might be in the business of digging up or creating dirt for hire to help political campaigns.
The number of dark money groups throwing around money at "non-profits" that deal in the information economy is sort of scary.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, the lying bunch of right, or rather wrong-wing scum, who finally got their just desserts?
well she must have been a threat to democracy! (Score:2)
Thats the old line the US govt always uses whenever it is caught acting like the totalitarian police state it is rapidly evolving into.
Re:well she must have been a threat to democracy! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that has always annoyed me. I try to keep in mind that this is simply humans being humans, but sometimes that depresses me even more.
Re: well she must have been a threat to democracy! (Score:2)
Re: well she must have been a threat to democracy (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Going to bat for the Soviet Union is really quite .... something. If you don't recognise that life was much worse in almost every way -- from food to political repression to everything else -- for the vast majority of people in the Soviet Union than it was for the vast majority of people in the US at the time, you are lost to all hope and reason.
Re: (Score:2)
All those things the US used to accuse the Soviet Union of doing, they were doing too. Sometimes at the same time.
Not exactly the same; we are not trying to murder 50 million people at a clip. We set our oppression and yoke carrying slightly lower than straight Fascism and unchallenged propaganda.
Re: well she must have been a threat to democracy! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So be careful throwing the ford fascism around, because it is a socioeconomic position of its own, not some metaphor for control freak.
Be careful with yourself -- learn to spell first.
You don't like it go argue with historians.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact you think Soviet propaganda was unchallenged makes my point for me very well. Thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact you think Soviet propaganda was unchallenged makes my point for me very well. Thanks.
It is unchallenged. 80% of current Russians support the action in Ukraine. That is either propaganda from outside Russia (the claim) or inside (who is making the claim).
The fact you think Russia is "SOVIET ERA" still -- hasn't been for 25 years, Comrade.
Re: (Score:2)
DOJ should be a 4th branch (Score:2, Interesting)
...letting the Prez run it is too risky.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, since the executive branch is tasked with actually doing stuff, a new replacement for the DOJ would be ginned up. I did find myself thinking something similar, though, back when the DOJ ignored most of the red flags and recommendations from the Mueller report. It reminded me of when I was an analyst, spent a lot of time laying out and balancing the issues, and the boss came along and ignored everything because he just had lunch with a salesman.
Humans are a problem.
Re: (Score:1)
> Unfortunately, since the executive branch is tasked with actually doing stuff, a new replacement for the DOJ would be ginned up.
Example scenario?
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure. I imagine the Constitution would need to be amended, since it would alter the three designated branches of govt and the balance of powers. A way would need to be found to appoint or elect the person to run this fourth branch. Care must be taken as to the amount of power for this person and how to balance it, as we have seen with the examples of the Gestapo, KGB, CIA, FBI, HUAC, etc. As you would be splitting an Executive power into two branches, I can foresee power struggles. Again, since both wou
Re: DOJ should be a 4th branch (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that the legislative branch has neutered itself so much (e.g. filibuster) that they don't ever accomplish anything. The whole point of having opposing viewpoints in a chamber together is to come up with a decent compromise of some sort, but even when they actually try to pass something that has just become a pork game rather than negotiating the core principals of whatever is being attempted.
A complete lack of civility and we just have toddlers on both sides folding their arms and refusing t
Re: (Score:1)
The problem is that the legislative branch has neutered itself so much (e.g. filibuster) that they don't ever accomplish anything. .
That's not a bug, it's a feature. For the same reason that we have a Constitutional Republic instead of a Democracy because that's the scariest form of government of all. In the heat of the moment 51% can vote to enslave and/or kill the other 49%. Think two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
Re: (Score:2)
Why?
The legislative branch has all the power it needs to check a criminal president. It has the power to remove him from office. It has the ability to charge and convict. It has the ability to set its own standards of evidence and even decided for itself what a high-crime or misdemeanor is in that context. Its even a matter of debate as to if said high-crime or misdemeanor need even be something in the current US code. However the debate is moot because there is no place which you can appeal the Senate's c
Re: (Score:2)
We had that de facto when J Edgar Hoover was in charge. It did not work out so well.
How far the party has moved (Score:1, Informative)
Let's take a stroll down memory lane to 1984 and hear Ronald Reagan's thoughts on illegal immigrants.
"I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and lived here, even though sometime back they may have entered illegally,"
https://www.npr.org/templates/... [npr.org]
Fast forward to Trump in 2016 locking people in cages and shipping children away as punishment.
Re: (Score:3)
Name one which employed an actual nazi - stephen miller - to gin up a policy in which children would be snatched from their parents and deliberately lost as a means of systematic terrorism of the most despicable kind imaginable against people whose only "crime" is fleeing death by starvation or violence, the majority of both of which can be traced directly back to the United States' own actions and policies.
It might do for you to look up how the civilized world handles incarc
Re: How far the party has moved (Score:2)
Doing it all wrong (Score:2)
People these days are doing it all wrong. There are so many ways to do dead drops it's not even funny. Use your head people.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Especially when you're dealing with whistleblowing, you wouldn't just have one phone number. The people calling you are possibly having their own call records scoured and if the number you're calling is a Google search away from confirming you're leaking to a journalist that's a problem.
Re: EU must sanction the US! (Score:2)
They are sharing their horror with us on Signal, WhatsApp, and other âoeend-to-end encryptedâ messaging services.
Obama (Score:3, Insightful)
The Obama White House was somewhat notorious for wiretapping. Journalists in particular. Remember James Rosen?
Far past time we got more oversight and accountability at the DOJ.
Re: (Score:2)
What if two things can be wrong?
Re: (Score:2)
There are countries with secret courts... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Has become? Get real, every government in every country is at least like this and has been forever.
The only thing that has changed is peoples ability as a group to observe and discuss it, thanks to the internet.
Rights in an Authoritarian Society (Score:2)
More of what to expect as the GOP seizes more power. We are becoming a Bananna Republuc - might even have more rights in one.
Re: Rights in an Authoritarian Society (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In China, right? (Score:1)
"separation" (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
You do realise that illegals are criminals right? There's a hint right in the name.
Re:"separation" (Score:4, Informative)
That name is broadly applied where it doesn't fit. Asylum seekers are not criminals no matter where they cross. They are not retroactively deemed criminals for being denied either. See the Refugee Act, INA Act, etc.
Detaining them was supposed to expedite the removal of ineligible seekers under a 1996 law rather than having them wait around in the country for a hearing. Instead, they're being locked up AND not being given a hearing. A complete violation of the intent of the law and of human rights.
Re: (Score:2)
Asylum seekers. lol get a fucking clue.
You should come here to southern AZ and see for yourself what all the drugs and gangs those Mexican "asylum seekers" are bringing in are doing to our kids and communities.
Re:"separation" (Score:4, Insightful)
Criminals?
The US is party to the Geneva Convention on Refugees and has passed its own laws to match the terms. The treaty itself says:
"The contracting states shall not....impose penalties on refugees who entered illegally in search of asylum if they present themselves without delay" (getting "caught" very much counts as without delay)
The US law matches this and if someone is found to have crossed the border outside an official port of entry they have an opportunity to request asylum. Because this exception is allowed under law, this does not make them criminals. It's a procedural determination, and even if they are determined not to be eligible this does not retroactively make it a criminal act.
Trying to backlog or close the official borders does not absolve the US of its own responsibilities under the law. Being able to detain people rather than giving them a notice to appear in immigration court is something passed under a 1996 law. It was supposed to facilitate expedited removal of ineligible seekers rather have them wait for a hearing. They weren't detained for being criminals. A prolonged detention for the purpose of "expedited" removal is completely counter to the purpose of the law and should be ended as such.
Government protects itself (Score:1)