The DOJ had Subpoenas to monitor the AP

[Pryderi]

The subpoenas were granted.

End of story.

http://wapo.st/18IBrvY

[geek tragedy]

1. judicial or administrative subpoena? nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. No, not really

You are ok with the Government trying, at the very least, to scare off reporting?

One more thing, this happened in oh 2007, you'd lead the parade

[Pryderi]

5. If we don't like the laws granting expansive powers to the Executive branch, then tell

the GOP to repeal them.

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. 2007 you'd lead the parade, thought so

[Pryderi]

13. Yes, I did and it's legal. Change the laws. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. Good bye

I got no use for blind followers.

[Floyd_Gondolli]

17. Or anyone else that disagrees with you

Or challenges your authority on literally every subject.

You have a very thin skin and don't know nearly as much as you think you do.

Have a little humility once in awhile. It does a body good.

[FSogol]

41. LOL. Off to the ignore list with you.

[Floyd_Gondolli]

43. Actually I've been on it for awhile

I dared to question her about the use of AP Style in one of her stories that she linked here and she promptly chastised me and then put me on ignore. I just like talking (or in this case writing) to myself.

[randome]

45. S'okay. You always get the last word, too!

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[apples and oranges]

16. I agree with you. The problem is the Patriot Act and similar laws

If we as a nation don't like this, the laws should be repealed. Republicans will have to explain why they crafted these laws when they don't want them used. At the end of the day, we're going to keep having these problems until Americans wake up and vote wisely.

[Pryderi]

21. EXACTLY! This is a great opportunity to restore some of our liberties. n/t

[apples and oranges]

33. A great opportunity that will be missed because, as usual, we focus on the wrong things

Instead of endless "zOMG Obama is spying!" posts, we should be saying "OMFG! Repeal these laws now!" Republicans would be backed into a corner and either forced to repeal the laws or show that they're in full support of them.

[rhett o rick]

35. What makes you think they DEmocrats in Congress want these laws repealed?

Their sponsors are happy with the way they are. I was naive and thought in 2008 that the Democrats, the good guys, would make a great effort to undo all of the Bush laws that take away our Constitutional rights. But no way. They are not any more interested than the REpublicans. If so, I have seen no evidence of it.

[frylock]

46. bwahahahahahaha!!!!!

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! the opportunity to do that passed a long time ago. democrats have ZERO interest in restoring our liberties.

[Skidmore]

22. Exactly.

I don't think the public is educated well enough about the contents of the Patriot Act. It was passed in the heat of a moment of fear for the nation by people who were seeking to gain from endless war. The law needs to be changed and this nation needs to quit living in fear. It has become addicted to crises.

[MNBrewer]

44. and the Democrats will have to explain why they keep reauthorizing them.

The surveillance state is a bipartisan effort!

[kentuck]

3. Does that mean they had to get approval from the 3-judge panel?

Like Bush did when he wiretapped 3 million people??

[randome]

10. This was no wiretap. Only a subpoena to the phone companies.

Numbers and times only. No content.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[backscatter712]

47. So this is pen-register data, not actual contents of conversations.

I don't remember the relevant case law, but this does make a difference.

[JaneyVee]

52. No actual content or wiretap. Just paper records of which numbers called which numbers.

[apples and oranges]

4. I don't know much about this story but

are some of the people who are angry about this also angry that the FBI didn't do more to stop the Boston bombers?

[graham4anything]

9. all of them. They are transparent aren't they

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. "It’s an astonishing assault on core values of our society.” From the link.

But experts said the scope of the records secretly seized from the AP and its reporters goes beyond the known scale of previous leak probes.

“This investigation is broader and less focused on an individual source or reporter than any of the others we’ve seen,” said Steven Aftergood, a government secrecy expert at the Federation of American Scientists. “They have swept up an entire collection of press communications. It’s an astonishing assault on core values of our society.”

[Pryderi]

11. Still legal under the law. Change the law. n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. Do you agree with "the law" that attacks the freedom of the press?

BTW, one of the ways to change a law that is obviously a bad law is to bring it to the public's attention. Or, in other words, raise hell about it.

[Pryderi]

19. Yes. I do. And I would recommend President Obama propose legislation be passed to address it.

[Skidmore]

23. It's worth noting that the press is only concerned about because it affects them directly.

[JustAnotherGen]

28. +1

When it was those of us involved in the anti Iraq war movement 9 years ago - we were one step below dirtbags to this very same press . . .

[Yo_Mama]

20. If you don't want to even discuss whether this was wise or should be legal,

how do you expect the law to be changed?

I would wager that a Congressional inquiry into this will serve many public purposes, not least of which would be considering whether there need to be more protections in the law from such a thing.

It seems to be that your argument is circular, at best. You start out with "end of story", and now you want to change a law without ever publicizing and discussing what happened here and whether it should have happened and whether such powers could be misused?

[graham4anything]

7. Yup. but that won't stop the haters in the hate media/altmedia.

and we all know why.

President Obama don't suit their $$$angle$$$

[randome]

12. But it was 'secret' inasmuch as the DOJ does not immediately check in with AP about its activities.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Yo_Mama]

18. The Attorney General is the entity that grants them

There is no judicial review in such a case.

From the article you linked:

“We take seriously our obligations to follow all applicable laws, federal regulations, and Department of Justice policies when issuing subpoenas for phone records of media organizations,” said a statement from Bill Miller, spokesman for the office. “Those regulations require us to make every reasonable effort to obtain information through alternative means before even considering a subpoena for the phone records of a member of the media.”
...
Justice Department guidelines require that subpoenas of records from news organizations must be approved personally by the attorney general. Holder’s office did not reply to repeated requests for comment.

I know I'm an old fart, but think of what such a precedent could allow a Nixon to do. Get two months of communications records from both personal and office phones for reporters who didn't even work on the story?

Because AP was not informed of the subpoena, it could not hire a lawyer to ask for judicial review. I literally cannot comprehend why "progressives" would support such a thing.

During the Bush administration, phone companies were agitating because they were getting demands for these records without any subpoenas at all. But a secret subpoena protects only the phone companies.

[cali]

26. thank you very much for the helpful info.

[Melinda]

24. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/50.10

From EFF

http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/50.10

28 CFR 50.10 - Policy with regard to the issuance of subpoenas to members of the news media, subpoenas for telephone toll records of members of the news media, and the interrogation, indictment, or arrest of, members of the news media.

The widespread collection of information, as well as the apparent delay in notifying AP, both appear to be yet another violation the government's own regulations, 28 C.F.R. sec. 50.10. In 2010, the DOJ Inspector General reported on three other violation, involving the Washington Post and New York Times. The regulations require that, "wherever possible" subpoenas of records of the news media should be "directed at material information regarding a limited subject matter, should cover a reasonably limited period of time and should avoid requiring production of a large volume of unpublished material."

None of those limits appear to have been observed here. It seems impossible to imagine how a subpoena for all the records of call to and from AP's main switchboard, for example, is as narrowly tailored as the law required. Importantly, the regulations anticipate negotiation with the news media prior to subpoena, which also didn't occur. And in any event the regulations require notification to the news media within 45 days of any receipt of any information. with another 45 days possible with additional authorization. Since the timeframe of the records is a year ago, it seems likely that the government did not abide by this regulation either. While the regulations do not allow a lawsuit, violations of them can be grounds for discipline for governmental officials.

[Pryderi]

31. "wherever possible" we're talking about a story that endangered CIA operatives lives and National

security.

[cali]

25. no, it certainly is not the end of the story

why the fuck would they need secretly granted subpoenas? Why would they need them for personal phone lines? Why were they granted? Why were they so broad? Is the judiciary rubber stamping DOJ subpoena requests?

Senator Leahy isn't at all satisfied and those are some of the questions you can bet he'll be asking when he calls a committee hearing on this.

And you can bet your ass he will.

[randome]

29. Who says they were 'secretly' granted?

The DOJ is under no obligation to inform AP of all its activities. It's only the AP who wants to assign nefarious motives to the DOJ by using the word 'secret'.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[cali]

37. one little acronym for you: FISA

[randome]

42. That has to do with wiretapping and physical evidence. I don't see how FISA applies here.

Nor that it was invoked. If they had a subpoena, was that the same thing as a FISA warrant? I thought they were two different animals.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[morningfog]

32. Journalism in the US has become an underground

operation. The DOJ is using its administrative subpoena power to investigate journalists' sources. They are acting as the muscle of the administration. Journalism and democracy depend on confidential communications between sources inside and journalists. This broad subpoena gives the DOJ far too much info. If bush had done this there would not be any apologists here defending it.

[demOcrat11]

34. Im lost

AP leaked classified information on a terrorist investigation involving national security. So Holder did his job investigated got a subpoena and obtained ingoing and outgoing calls of reporters. Last time I checked leaking classified information is a crime. Why is DOJ being scrutinized?

[cali]

38. no. that is NOT the story. sheesh.

AP received leaked information on a foiled terror plot. they withheld that information as requested for several days, but published it a day earlier than they had the green light to.

And this phone record seizure was unduly secretive and overly broad.

But I'm sure you think Pat Leahy is some radical malcontent intent on sabotaging the Obama admin:

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in an emailed statement: "The burden is always on the government when they go after private information, especially information regarding the press or its confidential sources. ... On the face of it, I am concerned that the government may not have met that burden. I am very troubled by these allegations and want to hear the government's explanation."

[demOcrat11]

39. I could care less about Obama admin being sabotaged

Actually no I dont think Leahy is some radical, I agree with the senators comment. I said I was lost meaning I dont get the whole story but thanks for clearing it up for me.

[Douglas Carpenter]

36. Who would want to live in a society where the government cannot have free access to sources

that the press are using? Doesn't the Constitution protect the right of the government to secretly investigate the press? Isn't that like in the First Amendment? At least if it is done in the interest of national security?

Can ANYONE tell me with a straight face that ANY U.S. officials would ever dream of claiming national security as a reason if that was even the least bit doubtful?

[madokie]

40. For most peeps yes

some here not so much
If I was a betting man I'd bet that there is a lot more to this story than any one person here knows, including the all knowing ones too

[FlynnArcher72]

48. If it were the end of the story, there would be an end to the subject

Yes, the subpoenas were granted. That cannot be argued. What can be argued is whether or not the subpoenas were granted with reasonable suspicion as to the AP leaks. Without reasonable suspicion, the subpoenas would be invalid as well as illegal and the DOJ would definitely be in hot water. Everyone is taking jabs at the subpoenas, but the real scruitiny should fall on the exact information and evidence that prmpted the actin to begin with. Follow the problem to the source and you will see if the AP is a victim of a judicial system run wild or if the system had letitimate backing to their actions.
Being a scientifically-minded person, I am all for questioning everything, but questions have to be balanced out with researched facts, not supposition.

[hrmjustin]

49. Welcome to DU my friend!

[FlynnArcher72]

50. Thank you :)

I have a feeling I am going to like it around here. A good debate is a wonderful way to get the blood pumping

[hrmjustin]

51. Good! Glad you came aboard!