Why wasn't everyone who is outraged now outraged at the launch of the leak investigation?

[ProSense]

The media and a lot of people were criticizing the administration over the leaks and demanding that the WH get to the bottom of it.

Now they're upset about the administration going after the leaker?

Leaks could sink Obama Whitehouse (2012)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022843810

GOP Calls for Holder’s Resignation Over investigation They Demanded
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022845073

I found a perfect comment at Daily Kos.

I'm enjoying the irony

Probably not for the same reason most here seem to be.

The Times and AP (all the U.S. msm, actually), were perfectly willing to cheerlead the gov't and throw Wikileaks under the bus. There were no complaints when the gov't forced Twitter to turn over account details of a member of the Icelandic Parliament, but now that it is happening to them, they are suddenly apoplectic. They were "Rah, Rah" in support of the government "War on Terra" and support for DHS and all that entails, and now they've been bitten in the butt by their own hypocrisy. Their outrage is way late, and now they are the ones being ground under the boot of the police state that they celebrated when it was being created.

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/1209188/50179279#c49

There were a lot of people consistent in their opposition to any leak of damaging classified information, but clearly the media are being hypocrites, especially after hyping the GOP position that the WH may be involved in leaks.

[spanone]

1. k&r...

[treestar]

2. The irony is that if there had been a terrorist attack

The same people would have been the first to blame the government for not "connecting the dots."

They comfortably blamed the FBI for "dropping the ball" on the Boston Bomber issue while at the same time claiming the search for the remaining one indicated a "police state."

[zappaman]

15. I wish I could REC this post n/t

[NoMoreWarNow]

16. I'm not sure that would be the same people, and the question still is--

If the govt is doing all that spying, then why can't they connect dots better?

The FBI clearly did drop the ball on Tamerlan Tsarnaev.

The military style crack down on Boston was totally overkill too, and did look like practice for a police state.

[treestar]

18. Point proven.

[blm]

3. Corpmedia will show outrage based on what serves the current needs of their corporate masters.

There is nothing ethical about the corpmedia and its practice of 'journalism' over the last 3 decades.

[ProSense]

5. Oh, it was

"Corpmedia will show outrage based on what serves the current needs of their corporate masters. There is nothing ethical about the corpmedia and its practice of 'journalism' over the last 3 decades."

...the news of the day. Seriously, go to the link at "Leaks could sink...." in the OP.

Romney Blasts Security Leaks as a Betrayal
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/25/us/politics/romney-blasts-security-leaks-as-an-obama-betrayal.html?pagewanted=all

Mitt Romney Accuses Obama Of Classified Material Leaks
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/24/mitt-romney-vfw_n_1699079.html

[treestar]

19. Yet if proves lack of transparency

And had Julian and Wilkkeaks released them it would be heroic. Regardless of who got killed

[snappyturtle]

4. I think critics of the administration may look at the goings on of today

as an attempt by the administration to shift blame of the
leaking onto the press. (????) Just a hunch. imho

edit: I don't think that's happening but others could use it
for spin.

[JayhawkSD]

6. To a degree, Kos is comparing apples to oranges.

Wikileaks and twitter are not, per se, news organizations. The former is a small group of individuals formed specifically to prevent improper secrecy in governments, while the latter is a glorified online chat room.

That doesn't mean they are not entitled to protections from search and seizure, but it's questionable that they are equal to AP or, say, The Times under first amentment status in terms of "freedom of the press." Whether or not they might be technically, it is certainly understandable that the media would see a difference.

[byeya]

7. I understand what you are saying and sort of agree with it but saying news gathers org. "A" is OK

while news gathering "B" is not needs an entity with power to mete out First Amendment rights. It's here where I side with the non-traditional press as is commonly known and think they are as entitled to freedom of the press as the Queen of Bias, the New York Times.

[ProSense]

8. Agree to an extent, but

"Wikileaks and twitter are not, per se, news organizations. The former is a small group of individuals formed specifically to prevent improper secrecy in governments, while the latter is a glorified online chat room."

...the in conjunction with the media's role in pushing the leak investigation, it shows hypocrisy.

Also, I posted about the shied law here (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022842924), which would expand the protections.

Another change in the legislation that is attracting attention is the inclusion of bloggers, freelance journalists and student journalists to the definition of protected individuals. To define a journalist, a test is applied to assess if the person is regularly gathering information for public dissemination, instead of by whether or not the journalist is paid by a news organization -- a definition that was included in previous drafts of the bill.

http://www.spj.org/news.asp?ref=936

[pscot]

13. There were no news organizations when the Constitution was written

News was as likely to be spread by handbills or town criers as by newspapers. I think the founders intended the broadest imaginable definition of a free press. Eight years later the government was already trying to roll that back with the alien and sedition acts. Does anyone know what was leaked? What was so damaging about it? I haven't seen any specifics, just the broad allegation of leaking.

[treestar]

22. We are all the same

AP does not have greater rights.

[sheshe2]

9. I've stopped watching the news...

I can get a less biased report from the net.

Why is it that I can get better news coverage watching Stewart and Colbert than the daily snooze stations!

[Savannahmann]

10. Here is my problem.

Freedom of the press is a Constitutional Guarantee. It is first among the amendments. Part of the principle behind that was to limit or minimize intimidation of the press, allowing them to report the facts, the truth, to the people. The premise of that is that only an informed populace is a democratic one.

There are two ways to go about such an investigation. The hard way, and the easy way. The hard way is to look at everyone who was briefed in on the operation, and find out who was in Washington, and then eliminate those who could not have talked, and look at those who could. It is common practice to give those with Top Secret clearances in the CIA periodic polygraph tests, in order to insure they are not improperly divulging information to anyone not authorized. That is the hard way to find the leaker.

The easy way is to go after the reporter. We objected to the detention of reporters who refused to name sources in the past. The idea was then, and is now, that we know that there is a fine line between a free press, and a propaganda arm of the Government. The Soviet Union's first and subsequently largest newspaper was called Pravda. That means truth, and it was full of anything but truth.

So there was a finite number of people who could have told anyone about the operation. Those people could be checked, under the normal and routine polygraph and security checks. Instead, the Justice Department went after the messenger. The reverse was the harder, right way, the easy way is the path they took. It put the reporters on notice that they better not accept classified information, and it told any potential sources of information that they had better not tell any Reporter anything.

If you know a secret, and I have no right to know it. It isn't incumbent upon me to keep you from talking. The responsibility is yours to keep your mouth shut. Going after the messenger is the tool of intimidation, and we don't want a press intimidated into silence. We want a press free and encouraged to find stories, and tell the truth.

[ProSense]

11. No, here is the problem

Freedom of the press is a Constitutional Guarantee. It is first among the amendments. Part of the principle behind that was to limit or minimize intimidation of the press, allowing them to report the facts, the truth, to the people. The premise of that is that only an informed populace is a democratic one.

There are two ways to go about such an investigation. The hard way, and the easy way. The hard way is to look at everyone who was briefed in on the operation, and find out who was in Washington, and then eliminate those who could not have talked, and look at those who could. It is common practice to give those with Top Secret clearances in the CIA periodic polygraph tests, in order to insure they are not improperly divulging information to anyone not authorized. That is the hard way to find the leaker.

The easy way is to go after the reporter...

People are framing this as freedom of the press, and journalist were not targeted. The investigators legally subpoenaed phone records to identify leakers, whith the media demanded the administration address. Also, "easy way" or "hard way" is a determination that's relevant only if one knows all the facts. From the AP's initial report

The Justice Department lays out strict rules for efforts to get phone records from news organizations. A subpoena can be considered only after "all reasonable attempts" have been made to get the same information from other sources, the rules say. It was unclear what other steps, in total, the Justice Department might have taken to get information in the case.

A subpoena to the media must be "as narrowly drawn as possible" and "should be directed at relevant information regarding a limited subject matter and should cover a reasonably limited time period," according to the rules.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=183700073

That doesn't tell us much, and this simply states the rules without any insights about the actual subpoena.

As Michael Isikoff stated:

ISIKOFF: Well, there are Justice Department regulations on this who - - which do state these subpoenas for news organizations should be crafted as narrowly as possible for a limited period of time. And that`s what the "A.P." in that extraordinary letter it wrote to Attorney General Holder today saying seems to be flouted here.

But they`re regulations, they`re not laws. And this is a criminal investigation and they do have the absolute legal authority to do this any way they want. But they would have to explain why they`re not following their own guidelines and regulations.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/51878006/ns/msnbc-rachel_maddow_show/

Still, the media hypocrisy is stunning.

"And agents twice improperly gained access to reporters’ calling records as part of leak investigations. "
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022846263

"Improperly" defined as "based on nothing more than e-mail messages or scribbled requests on Post-it notes"

I don't remember the outrage. You?

[treestar]

21. They are still subject to the law

Like the rest of us. That is not intimidating

[mountain grammy]

12. I think, at long last, my head is exploding and reality has left the building.

Boy, am I glad I have Medicare....

[bhikkhu]

14. So would this be a fair summary:

A terrorist plot in Yemen is foiled.

The details of the thing are leaked to the press before any official account is released.

The GOP cries foul - on the theory that the leaked information makes the administration looks good in an election year.

The GOP demands the DOJ investigate the leak.

Which brings us to the current "scandal" of the investigation of the leak, where "Stalinist police state" seems to be the meme...

so is that about it?

[Iliyah]

17. Well what did the GOP and press say

"if you have nothing to hide" something like that.

[ProSense]

23. Good. n/t

[ProSense]

24. Oops, don't you

hate when you respond to a troll?

[Cha]

25. I'm against any leaks that puts people's lives in danger. Including the

Valerie Plame CIA, leak.

thanks ProSense

[David Zephyr]

26. K&R.

!

[hughee99]

27. Is anyone upset that they're going after the leaker OR

are they just upset by one of the methods being used?

Did people who wanted the government to get intel from captured terrorists give up their ability to complain about torture being used to try to do it?

[ProSense]

28. Actually

"Is anyone upset that they're going after the leaker OR are they just upset by one of the methods being used? "

...the hypocrisy of Republicans and the media is astounding.

Oh, this is good: House Republican 2012 hearing demanding DOJ subpoena reporters (video)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022847992

[hughee99]

29. No doubt the repukes are hypocrites, but that's not news.

My comment was more targeted toward the Democrats that are speaking out about this.

[ProSense]

30. This

"No doubt the repukes are hypocrites, but that's not news. My comment was more targeted toward the Democrats that are speaking out about this."

...applies:

Reporter Says He First Learned of C.I.A. Operative From Rove
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022850304

[hughee99]

31. Interesting story... not exactly sure what it has to do with Democrats who

are speaking out because they think the Justice Department casting of such a wide net could be seen as a shot across the bow of the press.

[ProSense]

32. It doesn't

"Interesting story... not exactly sure what it has to do with Democrats who are speaking out because they think the Justice Department casting of such a wide net could be seen as a shot across the bow of the press."

...have anything to do with that because the characterization has nothing to do with what happened.

This was not "a shot across the bow of the press." Phone records were subpoenaed to find a leaker. The press was not targeted.

In the Plame investigation reporters were targeted and threatened.

[hughee99]

33. I see, so it's like the government is tracking all the people that a bunch of reporters

communicated with over a 2 month period, but it's okay, because they're not after the reporters. Yeah, I can't see why anyone might think that could be misunderstood as an attempt at intimidation.

By that same logic, one could argue that it's okay if the government actually had all the phone calls recorded and copies of all emails sent by a bunch of reporters over that period of time, or even had constant surveillance of the reporters, since the reporters aren't the target.