What if the AP had been communicating with Julian Assange?

[BainsBane]

And DOJ was out to get evidence of reporters conversations with Assange. How would you all feel then? I see a lot of defending of DOJ's surveillance of AP because they were out to catch a leaker. Bradley Manning is a leaker, yet many here see him as a hero. Assange published those leaks, yet he's a hero. Why the contradiction?

[HiPointDem]

1. don't expect party-liners to make sense.

[CJCRANE]

2. You'll probably find that many DUers already agree with you

that the AP leaker, Bradley Manning and Julian Assange should be free to leak classified info.

And the ones who don't agree with you, see all of them as criminals.

However, there is a more nuanced opinion.

The government's job is to make and uphold laws.

I admire Bradley Manning and Julian assange but at the same time I understand why the government wants to go after both of them.

Who decides when it's okay to leak classified info? Whose opinion should the government rely on? If it is no longer illegal to leak classified info then there would be a free-for-all.

Plus there is a naive assumption that everyone who leaks classified info does it for a benevolent reason. What about Chinese spies, Russian spies, neocon moles etc?

The court of public opinion may say that this or that leak is okay but that's no way run a legal system.

[BainsBane]

5. Then there is the fact

That even if the leaker is acting against the public good, government surveillance of two months of phone records from reporters offices and homes to everyone ( including personal calls), not just the leaker, without judicial review far exceeded even DOJ's own guidelines.

They recorded far more than the leaker's calls. They had access to all of AP's calls to all of their sources. The press is angry because they feel it compromises their ability to report the news. Yet some here defend the government's actions by saying the media is useless anyway. Encroaching state authority to seek reporters phone records with only an administrative subpoena is a good way to ensure the press becomes even less effective?

[CJCRANE]

6. AFAIK they didn't "record" anything (as in voice content).

I don't know, just look at the Republicans, they will say almost anything to damage this administration. I assume they sign legal agreements not to disclose classified info. If suddenly it's okay to dislose classified info there will be a free-for-all. There needs to be a middle ground. You can't suddenly have 100% transparency with no protection for classified info (of course the Russians, Chinese and others would like that).

[BainsBane]

7. It's not all or nothing

It isn't either allow leaking or allow government collection of phone records. That's like saying either legalize murder or round everyone in a given area up without probable cause. The govt can investigate a leak by collecting targeted information based on probable cause.

I'm not interested in the Republicans as much as civil liberties. If you concede the Obama administration should have this power, every subsequent Republican administration will also have it, and then some.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

12. +1!!!!!

I have tried to get people to listen since this started in many different sites. I have felt like a voice in the wilderness! I am so happy I'm not alone!

[Progressive dog]

54. No it isn't, but a reporter shield law would fix

this and do it so that it couldn't happen again.
Right now, what was done to the AP was legal.

[sabrina 1]

25. It is the Government's job to protect information if leaking of that information would

cause harm to the country. It is NOT the Government's job to classify everything it is doing in order to keep the public from knowing how their government operates.

Eg, Wikileaks approached the US Govt before leaking anything asking for their help with redacting anything that might be harmful. The Govt did not respond.

Even after the release of the War video and War logs, the Govt wasn't, publicly anyhow, particularly concerned.

It was only after Assange revealed in an interview that Wikileaks had information on Big Banks that the Govt went after them.

So there are two issues involved. Why would the Govt want to hide information on Bank corruption is the question that SHOULD have been asked by the MSM. IF we had a truly free press.

The second is freedom of the press. It is their job to inform the public of what their government is up to. It is NOT their job to withhold information from the public that might embarrass the government or expose corruption.

However we have reached a point in this country and elsewhere, ie, China, Europe and of course in many other nations, where Governments and the Press work together to withhold information from the public. Whistleblowers are persecuted and punished, they can no longer trust the media when they have information that is important for the public to know. That is why Wikileaks was created in the first place and long before they released info on the US, they had been exposing corruption of governments and banks like Iceland and Kenya and gave Whistle Blowers a safe place to expose such corruption.

We should all be angry when any government tries to punish the free flow of information.

Imagine if governments and banks and corporations realized that IF they engage in corrupt behavior we have a strong Press that will reveal that corruption??

If the Government is so inept that it cannot protect legitimately harmful information from getting out, then classifies everything in order to stop the press from doing its job, we get illegal wars like Iraq and millions harmed. We get corrupt Banks crashing the world's economy etc, again harming millions around the world.

A healthy democracy does not fear a free press. That Manning and Wikileaks and OWS were targeted so diligently tells us we do not have a healthy democracy and we need to do something about it.

[KoKo]

39. Wikileaks turned over it's info to three large newspapers and those newspapers

cleared what they published with the Government. So, this wasn't a case where WIKI dumped. Plus most if not all that was turned over were Diplomatic Cables that were not "State or CIA Secrets."

Bradley Manning is a case of "conscience," it seems, where he was overwhelmed by the destruction we had done and released the Helicopter Attack video.

[randome]

41. Neither the newspapers nor Wikileaks reviewed the millions of documents that were released.

It is not humanly possible to do that except over the course of several years.

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

[rso]

45. assange and Manning

That's correct. In my view Assange is a self-absorbed attention seeker, while Manning is dumb kid. As for Assange offering to work with the USG in order to redact, the USG definitely cannot set the precedent of negotiating with someone figuratively holding a gun to your head. That is the reason we should not and do not negotiate with terrorists.

[randome]

56. The simplest explanation is usually the most likely.

Agree with you. I don't mind leniency with Manning and I find the CT about the government trying to 'get' Assange over the course of several years is absurd.

But your characterization of them both is right on, IMO.

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

[Chan790]

40. "And the ones who don't agree with you, see all of them as criminals."

This would be me.

[graham4anything]

51. Indeed, someone who pleads guilty to 22 crimes is a mass criminal. Not a good person

I don't believe in idolizing mass criminals.
And leaking is wrong 100% of the time. Hacking is wrong 100% of the time.

And the AP was 100% wrong and who knows, thousands of people could have died like did die on 9-11.
What if it led to 10x more than 9-11? 100x more?

Anarchy is never a good thing. Treason is even worse.
An anarchist treasonist is 2x as bad.

The AP was wrong and should come out and say so.

BTW, wasn't/isn't that Ron F. guy an AP writer? Can't recall there was much love for him

and what about Valerie Plame? I didn't like her info leaked, and I don't like that the AP did what was done to Valerie.And NO I don't consider Ellsberg a hero either.
So oops, there goes that argument from those folks.

[Bonobo]

72. "leaking is wrong 100% of the time."

The Pentagon Papers were 100% wrong?

Is that because they showed that your hero, LBJ, was lying to the people about the war?

[graham4anything]

73. The AP 100% wrong.

If LBJ were reelected in 1968, the war would have been over in 1969.
Those that saw to it that he wasn't, got Nixon/Reagan/Bush and will get Jeb.
As it was, the war started by the dreadful Eisenhower(Reagan1) and continuing with Nixon kept going for years more.

[Bonobo]

74. YOU said "leaking" is 100% wrong. Those are your words.

Did you misspeak?

Was the leaking of the Pentagon Papers 100% wrong?

[graham4anything]

75. I answered you already in the 1st post. The AP is 100% wrong.

80-20 over and out and may the 20 be out.
(that is like saying may the force be with the 80) in yoda terms.

[Bonobo]

76. 80% have 7% of the financial wealth in the USA, 20% have 93%. nt

[newfie11]

3. I feel without the FREE press we loose more freedom and rights

I don't care if the info was from Assamge or Manning. The AP was ask to hold the story and they did until it was ok to release it.
If our news is going to censored then welcome to the new China!

The MSM is already bad enough.
Maybe this is the " new world order" and if so God help us.

[CJCRANE]

4. So anyone working for the government should be able to leak any information to the press?

"The AP was ask(ed) to hold the story". Not demanded. Asked. Then they published it.

ETA: I assume government employees sign an agreement that they will not disclose classified information. So it's legally binding. They should pay the consequences. The court of public opinion can have its own view and sometimes its borne out and sometimes it isn't but you shouldn't have a free-for-all.

[newfie11]

8. Well that's your opinion

Mine is we have a right to know and so far I am allowed to have one.

The checks and balances of this government seem to have evaporated.

We now have a war machine looking forward to selling death and destruction for 30 and probably more years.

I suppose you felt Daniel Ellsberg should not have released the Pentagon Papers either.

Without the FREE press we are screwed.

[CJCRANE]

9. The AP published the story. No one stopped them.

Spies, moles, leakers and whistleblowers should face the consequences of their actions. If they are in the public interest then they will be vindicated.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

11. Look, if you use the press to get them...

then we won't have people come forward. That will cause the people to be blind!

Handle the leaks but don't use the press!

[newfie11]

13. Right

Cause only the guilty go to jail!

[Bluenorthwest]

15. Well where is the leaker? Who is facing those consequences? Or did their fishing produce

no results? It sure would make a difference if they had found the party in question. Since they did not, are we even sure they were looking for that and not just looking for whatever?
You keep saying 'the leaker should face consequences' but I guess I missed the part where they found anything about anyone that lead to an indictment. Any day now, I suppose?

[CJCRANE]

21. How long did it take to get to the bottom of the Plame leak?

What's a reasonable amout of time for an investigation in your opinion?

[emulatorloo]

22. +1

Wrote something similar but self-deleted because not as elegantly put.

[Bluenorthwest]

24. So are you equating the way Bushco handled that leak (they leaked it) to this?

How does that work? The administration was covering up the leak they made themselves in that case. And in the end, Libby went to jail. Big whoop. Cheney was absolved of all wrongdoing. Who got to the bottom of that leak? Was it the DOJ? No, no it was not.

[sabrina 1]

28. If Government officials, Congress etc know that we have a healthy free press who will not fear

exposing corruption, they will be a lot more careful about their actions. Had that been the case, we would never have gone to war in Iraq and thousands of US troops and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis would be alive today.

You have it backwards. Government Officials are the ones who should 'face the consequences of their actions. If those actions are in the public interest then they will be vindicated'

Why on earth do you hold the press responsible but NOT the Government? Since when did we get to the point where the Government is always right and everyone else should 'face the consequences of their actions'??

THIS is the thinking that is destroying this country as the past decade has so sadly and tragically demonstrated. Wall St and the Government has faced ZERO consequences for some of the worst and most harmful behavior towards millions of people around the world, while Whistle Blowers mostly telling the truth are the ones being persecuted.

Sometimes I have to believe that we deserve what we get except then I think of all those who have died, are maimed who were tortured, who lost their jobs, homes etc BECAUSE of the BACKWARDS THINKING displayed by far too many people in this country.

[CJCRANE]

31. But the AP leaker is probably someone in the government!

So you've got it backwards in this case. And that person should face the consequences. if they did it for a good reason they will be vindicated.

When you break the law you have to take a chance that you will face some consequences for your actions, like if you drive through a red light on the way to the hospital. You may have a good reason but you do it knowing the possible consequences.

[sabrina 1]

46. You mean he is a whistle blower. I do not have it backwards. The press needs sources

in order to get news about government. Where do you think they get it? Generally from whistle blowers.

As I said, if Government officials are doing no wrong they do not need to fear. If this whistle blower turns out to be telling the truth and the government is harassing and spying on the press, then that is what democracy is about, isn't it? Or would you rather have a secretive government protected by a puppet media? We have plenty of examples of that kind of system, I'll be happy to refer you to a few of them.

I prefer protection for whistle blowers, thorough investigations into corruption and crime in government and in our financial institutions, a free press that does its job, iow, when a source provides information the press digs up as much accurate information as it can before publishing a story and NEVER EVER hides information once they have it, from the public. If there is no wrong doing the press won't find it so no one needs to worry unless they are hiding something.

[randome]

53. 'Whistle blower'? What crime was alleged? None that I know of.

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

[LiberalLovinLug]

59. "None that I know of"

WHOOSH....!

[CJCRANE]

71. As I understand the leak was a "scoop" of a sensational story, not really an expose.

Do you see the difference?

Imagine a scoop about Valerie Plame: "Woman who tracked WMD was married to ambassador!"

Now that's interesting, even sensational, information but is it in the public interest to know that?

Especially as the release of the information causes you to burn all the associated contacts and assets and put future operations in jeopardy.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

10. +1!

[emulatorloo]

19. The story was published. Therefore it wasn't "censored."

Once again, Gov is after leaker, not AP. IMHO is a Republican on intelligence committee, or DOD or CIA.

AP was not surveilled, legal subpoena for phone records.

"The MSM is already bad enough." FWIW AP is one of the biggest water carriers for GOP that exists. Keep that in mind when The Gary Pruitt of the AP pumps out his hyperbolic spin.

[GeorgeGist]

14. What if the AP had been communicating with Mike Rogers?

[emulatorloo]

17. "DOJ's surveillance" is rather hyperbolic

They subpoenaed phone records.

That is not 'surveillance'

Leaker is most likely

- a Republican on the intelligence committee
- somebody in the DOD
- somebody in the CIA

[Bluenorthwest]

23. I'd say the word 'Justice' in DOJ is hyperbolic.

What did they get out of their mass grab of records? Did they indict anyone? Or did they find out it was a Republican, one of their beloved moderates or conservatives, so they don't want to indict?
They went to excess to get the facts. So what did they achieve? Is it acceptable to do this over and over and never get any results?

[emulatorloo]

26. Q: Do you have evidence AP was surveilled (wiretaps, email monitored)? A: No

So yes, it is hyperbolic.


Investigation is still in progress.

[Bluenorthwest]

29. You are making up the definition of surveillance

sur·veil·lance
/sərˈvāləns/
Noun
Close observation, esp. of a suspected spy or criminal.

Note that the word is not limited to wiretapping or email monitoring, it is about observation.

Now maybe you should look up 'hyperbolic' to nail that one down a bit better as well. Words have meanings that are not made up to suit a momentary argument.

[sabrina 1]

47. The subpoenas didn't come until after the surveillance. But that's the world Bush created and this

administration decided not to investigate. We wanted consequences for the war criminals, we were told that would not be a good thing. Now we are seeing what happens when you let criminals off the hook and their policies to continue. They will use them against you. I hate to say it, but 'we told you so' back when we heard we were just going to 'move forward'.

[randome]

49. The subpoena wasn't necessary if the case merited certain exceptions.

Plus there apparently is grand jury involvement so the government's role in this is not the only one. I'd say a grand jury composed of citizens trumps all.

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

[sabrina 1]

66. So you have fully accepted Bush's anti-Constitutional 'terror' laws.

The Fourth Amendment still stands and trumps all those 'laws' as far as I am concerned and while Bush was president Democrats never wavered in their support for the protections of the Constitutions. What changed YOUR mind, or did you support Bush's lies about the need to dispense with the Constitution?

Seems Bush was right after all, the Constitution is just a 'quaint document' and if he had his way he would rather be a dictator. We thought that was insane once upon a time. Amazing to see this back-tracking. That article about Democrats who now support Bush's laws appears to have been true after all.

[randome]

67. Unless Bush said the sky was blue, I don't think I'd agree with anything he did or said.

But I do think putting the Constitution on equal footing with the Bible is ridiculous. We can change the direction of this country whenever we want. There should be no sacred documents.

Do I agree with how the DOJ handled this? No. But then I'm not in the business of micro-managing the intelligence services. Absent evidence to the contrary, it does appear they narrowed the search as much as possible and I'm willing to wait for more information.

And if a grand jury was behind this, I have no qualms whatsoever about what was done.

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

[sabrina 1]

69. Grand juries are one of the most abused and misused part of our judicial system as everyone knows.

And since when did we get rid of the 4th Amendment? If we are going to change the 'direction of the country' why would you support turning into a totalitarian state? Why do you think the 4th Amendment and 1st Amendment need changing? That's what Bush said more or less, that pesky Constitution was stopping him from being a dictator.

And since when are just laws equivalent to the Bible or any religion for that matter? What kind of thinking is that?

[zerosumgame0005]

18. and Bradley is facing the consequences

of his actions, are you saying AP should not?

[emulatorloo]

20. There won't really be any consequences for the AP. As the investigation is all about the leaker.

[randome]

27. 20 phone lines out of thousands and only for a 2 month period.

I'd say that was a narrow enough request for phone records.

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

[sabrina 1]

48. Just a little government spying on reporters. Is that now a good thing? I remember

when even a 'little spying on the press' by the government was an outrage. But things appear to have changed, this warrantlesss spying thing we all hated so much is now being excused, and by OUR side this time?

This is how democracy dies. Won't be the first time. When partisanship as we saw under Bush, trumps everything else.

[randome]

68. A subpoena, not a warrant. Legally issued.

Until I know more specifics, I'm not willing to jump on anyone's case.

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

[BainsBane]

70. an administrative subpoena

It never went before a judge.

[leveymg]

30. Awful lot of hypotheticals and hairsplitting lately. The fact is, the AP leak led to no compromise

of an ongoing counterterrorism operation, because the operation was already over.

We have a right to know what the gov't has done, particularly when the activities involve double-agents and bomb plots that are under CIA "control" as were all the incidents that were sprung out of the Yemen cell that involved al-Awlaki.

[randome]

32. 'Compromise' is not the point. Someone betrayed their oath and their country by leaking the info.

It's a good idea to learn who can no longer be trusted with classified information.

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

[leveymg]

36. Nobody's complains when DOJ bugs agency phones to look for a leaker. But, there is still an

expectation that the communications of reporters are privileged, if you want the First Amendment to still operate and if you want the press to uncover government operations that may be questionable. Otherwise, we can pass an Official Secrets Act on Monday.

After it became known to AP that this was a follow-on of the controversial Underwear Bomber incident (which a lot people know was a "controlled" operation) the details of this operation should have been exposed, particularly as the operation had been rolled-up after al-Quso was droned.

The use of double-agents and controlled operations has had terrible blow-back. 9/11 was just such an operation that went very, very bad. The Underwear Bomber was too close for comfort, and reportedly, Obama ordered a program review after that one. Nonetheless, the controlled bomb program centered around al-Awlaki and the Yemen bomb maker continued. People should ask questions about the wisdom of this - the media has a duty to report such things. Unless you want the CIA to make all these decisions -- using deception and lies to the American people as a cloak -- without any public knowledge or review?

[randome]

38. I do want them to conduct secret operations in secret.

The public does NOT have the right to micro-manage the military and intelligence services, IMO. A better alternative, I would think, would be to have an independent, non-agency board of review for such operations.

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

[leveymg]

42. After 9/11, they lost the presumption of competence to conduct such "controlled" operations.

There should also be automatic declassification after a reasonable period of time, along with much-expanded oversight. Some operations should be and must be classified as they happen, I agree, but a lot fewer than are today.

[randome]

43. Agree with that, too.

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

[burnodo]

33. Assange is not a member of the the US Government

Whoever leaked the info burned an asset. The action here might have been handled badly, but this is some other person who knew operational details and leaked them to the press. If the government should have a duty to protect and defend, it's understandable that this situation might be an occasion to bring all means to bear against an informant. This is not a whistleblower case. In THAT case, the current government doesn't have the best record.

[randome]

35. Burning an asset isn't even relevant.

What's relevant is that someone betrayed their oath and their country by leaking info.

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

[rso]

34. Assange and Manning

Sorry friends, but in my view, both Assange and Manning were totally wrong. Assange is a self-serving opportunist and I suspect that Manning is just a dumb kid.

The point is that you do not simply dump a massive amount of information out there hoping that some of it may be scandalous. They both just did a wholesale release of information that ran the gamut, without bothering to be at all selective and release only what they felt were specific abuses or crimes. As someone who served in our foreign service for many years, I can tell you that this type of action is totally egotistical and seditious, as it causes untold damage to relationships that foreign officers cultivate with their host country interlocutors.

[leveymg]

37. Assange and Wikileaks didn't just dump the data. It's been filtered through 4 or 5 major news-

papers. At least, that's how Wikileaks was originally supposed to work.

There is an enormous amount of information in those releases that has helped to correct disinformation, allowing members of the public to have a better grasp of what governments actually do and make better decisions about how they respond to policymakers.

[Zorra]

44. Irrelevant question. Julian would never leak this type of information to AP.

Leaking information about corporate and/or government violations of people's rights and violations of democratic principles abroad is a far cry from leaking information to the press about a terrorist plot. The plot was a CIA contrivance as part of a sting operation; nevertheless, Julian would not leak this type of information if he had accessed it. Julian is about protecting and furthering equality and justice by exposing government and/or corporate wrongdoing, not about exposing necessary investigations of terrorist groups who intend to blow people up, even if the investigative operation is a bogus one.

It would be much better to speculate on why several republicans were appointed to sensitive high level cabinet posts and other sensitive upper level positions in the Obama administration.

This should be a no brainer for any Democrat in office:

If you put weasels in the henhouse, the weasels are definitely going to kill all the hens, and eat all the eggs as well

For the allegorically/analogically challenged, this simply means:

If you don't want your staff to fuck you up on purpose, then don't appoint enemies to your staff.

It's not rocket science.

[treestar]

50. I don't see a disconnect

Seems like the same people who think it is find and dandy for Bradley and Julian to release willy-nilly any classified documents they can get, regardless of who gets hurt, are the same who would be yelling police state over the government objecting to AP publishing leaked documents.

[BainsBane]

61. The issue is not AP's publication of documents

But DOJ's seizure of two months of phone records not limited to the leaker.

[treestar]

62. If law enforcement has to be perfect such that it only investigates the actually guilty

Life is pretty much impossible. Other people can be investigated in order to find the perpetrator.

[BainsBane]

63. Investigation is different from accessing private information

that is when the police seek warrants, and and searches are subject to judicial review. The government did not seek that in the AP case. They had an administrative subpoena.

[treestar]

64. The administrative subpoena is legal

If you don't like that law, you can call congress critters to support a change. Or even challenge a law in court if applied to you in a way you don't like. In the meantime, the government will carry on with the powers it has.

[BainsBane]

65. The Patriot Act is legal too

that doesn't make it just.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

52. The Father Knows Best wing of our party would be verrry upset.

[TheKentuckian]

55. Seems to me that most defending also are wanting to get Assange

and favor prosecuting whistle blowers.

That is my impression. Maybe there is more crossover than I think but there appears to be a swelling or at least an increasingly open supporters of the security state. The hypocrisy is more that some have "evolved" their positions and many seem fairly clear they may "evolve" again depending on who holds particular offices and positions but in a small enough window, the schism seems pretty consistent, perhaps to the point where both sides legitimately think the other are pretty much Republicans just for different reasons.

I'm not going to lie, I do. I'm pretty firmly in the camp that sees many in our party as doing what Republicans do so they are an infection to be driven out before they kill the host but I fully get that my "opposite number" in this believes that me and my sort are destructive to the body from inside its self, maybe like a cancer ripping a body apart.

[randome]

58. There are procedures in place for whistle blowers. Leaking secrets to the press is not one of them.

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

[boilerbabe]

77. exactly. there is a group on here who wants to go after any or all whistleblowers or anyone that

might expose or make this administration look bad.

[emulatorloo]

78. Strawman

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

57. “News is what somebody somewhere wants to suppress; all the rest is advertising.” Lord Northcliffe

[MNBrewer]

60. I don't defend the DOJ in either case.