General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAP's "dangerous" leak of information: Here is what they did.
So Holder is claiming this was the most dangerous leak he's encountered. I don't see how this constitutes that, but judge for yourself:
<snip>
The attorney's office refused to say why the seizure had been made but it is almost certainly in relation to an AP exclusive report on 7 May last year in which it reported the CIA had stopped a plot by an al-Qaida affiliate in Yemen to destroy a US-bound airliner.
AP at the time agreed to White House and CIA requests to hold back publication because they said an intelligence operation was still under way. After being satisfied that these concerns had been met, AP published on the Monday, ignoring a request from the Obama administration to wait until Tuesday for the official announcement.
<snip>
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/14/associated-press-phone-records
oh noes. the AP published a story they had notified the White House and the CIA about, a day early. And it was not a story about an ongoing threat.
Really? You think this warrants the action DoJ took?
quinnox
(20,600 posts)What a flimsy excuse.
cali
(114,904 posts)I may be wrong, but I've read that. If true, his denial of involvement is a tad specious.
MetasticTwine
(67 posts)Whenever the AG recuses her/himself from an investigation, an Acting Attorney General is named to that investigation. In the case this specific investigation, that was the Deputy Attorney General.
In his capacity as Acting Attorney General for this investigation, it would have been the purview of James Cole to make the call on the subpoena.
randome
(34,845 posts)A subpoena was issued. That's not the same as a FISA warrant so far as I know.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]
cali
(114,904 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)written.
randome
(34,845 posts)Is any prosecutorial agency required to notify the world when it conducts an investigation?
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)you eagerly pound your keyboard and post on DU every time something comes out that you think will put the administration in an unflattering light.
I don't like the fact the phone records were subpoenaed, but it was technically legal. However, I'm not going to have an orgasm over this either.
Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #3)
alcibiades_mystery This message was self-deleted by its author.
cali
(114,904 posts)but feel free to make up ludicrous piles of shit about my motivations, dear.
lamp_shade
(14,796 posts)Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)to make America look bad and give aid and comfort to our enemies.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)madokie
(51,076 posts)Thats what I think. Maybe you have an inside link to the DoJ and are keeping us in the dark as to what is actually going on but I doubt it.
cali
(114,904 posts)and tell it to Senator Leahy who is also disturbed by this.
I don't think you're informed about, well, anything.
madokie
(51,076 posts)and it ain't pretty. In fact its quiet unhealthy to get all wadded up like you have been lately and you need to stop before you have an aneurysm.
cali
(114,904 posts)to be abused. You know nothing whatsoever about me. I know that YOU make sick, sick comments. Oh, and your faux apology was disgraceful.
Shame on you. Many times over.
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)It's done some great work in some areas but fallen flat in others.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)Oh, wait...I know. It's an insult designed to minimize the person your calling that name. It's ugly, childish, and lame to do that. Just post your reply, say what you mean to say, and lay off the personal attacks. That's my advice.
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)just sayin' .
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)make for lousy discussion. I'm not interested in the history, nor do I know it. Calling people demeaning, sarcastic names is just plain bad manners, here or anywhere else.
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)Yet even here, we are but humans. All I'm saying is that the origin of that insult probably wasn't in this thread.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)personally.
H2O Man
(73,333 posts)curious dynamic.
EC
(12,287 posts)by an infiltrator...maybe they didn't want Al Qaida in Yeman to know they had been infiltrated? Don't know, that seems important to me.
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)so I assume Al Qaeda knew they had been infiltrated. The implication in the linked article is that the admin didn't want this story published because it contradicted something said earlier, but who knows? I don't. I'm not questioning that the investigation occurred or should have occurred.
What bothers me so much about this is that I don't think a court would have allowed this subpoena to be served and I think that is reason AP wasn't told - so they could not seek judicial review. This is a subpoena issued directly by DOJ, it seems.
It's beyond belief that knowledge of a record request issued this year could have compromised the investigation (timing from this news account). But what would have "compromised the investigation" is a judge quashing the subpoena because it was overbroad.
If this is stonewalled it's going to court. Press organizations are not going to accept this type of move.
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)to stop a plot in such a way that it seems like an accident or a coincidence*.
The best intelligence work is the stuff we don't hear about. Just like Valerie Plame before she was outed.
ETA: *because I assume there are usually other persons of interest in the network. If you tip them off that you're onto them then they're more likely to scatter.
BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)If I may quibble on this particular issue, though, my guess is that they're concerned that the AP found out about it much earlier. Damage was minimized because the AP held the story until a day before the administration announced it, but they want to prevent the earlier leak in the future.
While that may be a legitimate concern (I don't know enough to say), I do think the burden of proof should be on the government to show that this wide dragnet was necessary. We should never simply trust the government, even if we believe it is being run by well-intentioned people.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)Center-Left.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)or Bachmann, or Cain, or Perry or whomever the latest one is.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)Yes, there are "bad guys" out there...
But it seems the concern trolls are pretty much just trying to score points with anything that can be tied to Obama. Man this place has changed since the election.
MjolnirTime
(1,800 posts)graham4anything
(11,464 posts)people would question and ask why didn't they do something about it
better to be proactive than dead.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,211 posts)coming from. Now they're all over him, because the DOJ followed up? I mean, WTF?
Tarheel_Dem
(31,211 posts)Just sayin'.
Hell Hath No Fury
(16,327 posts)the Guardian was the prime mover and shaker paper in exposing the Bush/Blair lies on Iraq. They have an excellent record on getting the stories right. Just becasue you don't like the news they publish of the conclusions they come to doesn't mean they aren't accurate.
H2O Man
(73,333 posts)I think that this is a disturbing threat to Amendment 1. And I think that is what is dangerous.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)IADEMO2004
(5,538 posts)Working a hot story can burn fingers. AP doing their job and DOJ doing theirs. Saddest part is GOP doing their job too.
Hell Hath No Fury
(16,327 posts)for pushing back on this intrusion on the 1st Amendment.