7 ms·

I supported Obama and worked for the campaign in 2008. I'm sad to see that this administration has been more aggressive in leak persecution than GWB. I don't

• jbooth 13y ago
  Yeah, I thought this was settled with the Pentagon Papers. But apparently everyone changed their mind after Wikileaks, and without court oversight. Can Fox News sue here? It seems like calling him a co-conspirator (aka journalist) just to get the search warrant with no plans to charge him is super fishy. And even more puzzling than Holder's actions, why isn't Fox News trumpeting this instead of Benghazi?
  • skylan_q 13y ago
    Nothing they do makes any sense. The ruling elite live in a different world from us commoners. Holder probably thought people would view him as a hero or something.
  • rayiner 13y ago
    There was a warrant, so I'm not sure what lack of court oversight you're talking about.
    • sigzero 13y ago
      That they "lied" or at least tried to change the rules to get the warrant?
    • jbooth 13y ago
      Bad wording on my part. I guess I was saying that there hasn't been a major court decision overturning US vs Ellsbury/NYT, yet somehow everyone's just pretending it's gone. Seems to me like in order to contradict that previous ruling you should be going to the Supreme Court. I also think it's sketchy as hell to name someone as a 'co-conspirator' in a leak case for being a journalist who was leaked to. That's not conspiracy, it's doing their job with protection from the first amendment.
      • deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
      • tss20147 13y ago
        They aren't pretending it's gone. There is a difference between a journalist passively receiving classified material which a source decides to provide them and a journalist actively soliciting a source to provide classified material. The government has a reasonable argument that a journalist actively soliciting for classified material may be in violation of the law and not protected under the first amendment. This has not been settled by case law and the judge which signed off on the search warrant agreed with the government that the journalist may be a co-conspirator.
        • jbooth 13y ago
          Thanks, I hadn't thought about it that way. Still disagree with it and all that but at least it makes some amount of sense that they were able to pull it off now.
  • mtgx 13y ago
    There was an article on BI a few days ago saying how "Americans don't care" about the AP spying (from a survey), and that they cared a lot more about IRS and Benghazi. But let's put things in context. The IRS scandal, and especially the Benghazi one, have been trumpeted at least 10x more than the AP one. Maybe 100x more. With such "awareness campaign" is it really a surprise most people responded in the surveys with IRS or Benghazi? So what this really means is that the media themselves don't really care about the AP spying - which is actually quite frightening, and a worse situation than I thought. You'd think they would want to turn this into another Watergate or something - but apparently not. Same for the Fox News journalist. These two stories would be reason enough to call for the impeachment of the president in my book. I mean it threatens a core power in the society - the press. The Benghazi story, and even the IRS one to "some" degree, are the real distractions here.
    • jbooth 13y ago
      Yeah, I hate that circular logic. Americans drink more coke than pepsi, look at the advertising budgets. You hammer something on prime time every night for 6 months and people will think it's a bigger deal than the story you don't. There's not an actual scandal behind Benghazi. Literally none. They're alleging a cover-up, "of what?", "they're covering it up!". That's the whole story and somehow it's 6 months of airtime. The IRS story is just bad CYA by the administrators there. Political groups applying for charity status is in fact something that the IRS should be auditing and cracking down on, regardless of political party, and there were a lot of tea party groups applying for charity status -- The dept head was actually a Bush appointee, they just weren't tactful enough about how they set their filters to make it look more bipartisan. This leak case, on the other hand, is actual erosion of press freedoms. And the media (?!?!?!!) seem to care the least about it.
      • shardling 13y ago
        Well, the New Yorker has been printing exactly your stance on this, so at least some elements of the media care. :)
      • deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
• Shivetya 13y ago
  Adjust their methods, I suggest that this wasn't about having journalist adjust their methods but to intimidate anyone in government from speaking out without approval. Approved leaks, like the recent IRS about targeting specific groups is an example of what is allowed. The leaks to this Fox reporter and the not so long ago prosecution of Thomas Drake are all about silencing people who know whats wrong from talking because now they will get the reporter to reveal their sources directly or indirectly.
  • mtgx 13y ago
    I agree. I'm pretty sure Obama does this to create a chilling effect for whistleblowers more than anything else, which means he values government secrecy very highly and it's the exact opposite of what he promised.
• tptacek 13y ago
  The idea that Obama has been more aggressive than Bush in leak investigations is popular, but I'm not sure it's anything more than circumstantial. Here are the leak prosecutions that have actually happened since he took office: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5701813 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5701813
  • joshuahedlund 13y ago
    The fact remains (as far as I know) that the Obama administration has prosecuted more leaks under the Espionage Act of 1917 than all other presidents up to now combined. So we have a few possibilities: 1) Obama is prosecuting at the same rate of aggressiveness as previous presidents but has happened to have more prosecutable leaks under his watch than all previous presidents combined. 2) Obama is prosecuting at the same rate of aggressiveness as previous presidents, and there has not been a sudden increase in prosecutable leaks, but Obama has found out about them better, and thus been able to prosecute more. 3) Obama is prosecuting at an increased rate of aggressiveness compared to previous presidents, because there has not been a sudden increase in prosecutable leaks the president knew about 4) It's all irrelevant because comparing 0 vs. 2 vs. 6 prosecutions among 20-some presidents is too small a sample size There's a lot of missing information here, so it's easy to see how some biases would tend towards 3 and others would tend towards 1-2 or 4
    • Nrsolis 13y ago
      The case against Tom Drake was beyond the pale for me. Every circumstance surrounding that case was just horrid. You only need one Watergate to bring down a president.
      • hga 13y ago
        "You only need one Watergate to bring down a Republican president." Fixed it for you.
        • tptacek 13y ago
          Anybody who compares Nixon to any subsequent US president, even Reagan, is betraying a lack of understanding of how serious Watergate was. There was, at the time, the possibility of a military coup --- and that coup would have been in defense of the Constitution.
• bradleyjg 13y ago
  Between signing off on warrants against journalists, signing off on the CIA murdering American citizens abroad (via OLC), and giving de facto immunity to banks and bank employees, Holder has been a terrible Attorney General. It's time for him to go.
  • 3825 13y ago
    Can an Attorney General sign a warrant? Isn't it supposed to be a judge who signs warrants?
    • bradleyjg 13y ago
      DOJ regulations require that the AG approve ('sign off' on) the request for a warrant targeting a journalist, but you are right that only a judge (well at least a magistrate) can actually authorize one.
      • 3825 13y ago
        I fail to see how it is newsworthy that the AG requested a warrant unless there's some kind of a trend that AG approved requests are disproportionately granted.
        • bradleyjg 13y ago
          The reason that the AG has to sign off on the request, as opposed to the usual process where a line prosecutor a few years out of law school does so on his own initiative, is because of the acknowledged conflicts of values inherent in investigating journalists for doing their jobs. So even the DOJ acknowledges it's something of a big deal, they just argue it was justified in this instance.
  • philwelch 13y ago
    Not to mention selling guns to Mexican cartels.
    • 13y ago
• shardling 13y ago
  > I DO think it's wrong to target bona fide journalists for criminal prosecution based on their reporting. I'm not sure there's any indication that they were really going to prosecute a journalist, though, was there? I know the way the warrants were written probably sounds like it implies that. But I think they were using the fact that the journalist technically broke the law to fish for information about the guy they were really targeting: whoever leaked the info. Now, you might well have a problem with that intent, the current law, or the way they obtained the warrants. But saying that the current administration was actually going to prosecute the journalist seems to me unfounded.
• LatvjuAvs 13y ago
  Oh boy. When you ask government a question they can tell its classified. But if you dare not to comply with government, you are in so much trouble :D And there the illusion shatters where government is for the people.
• throwaway9848 13y ago
  I didn't read the article, but I've heard nothing about him targeting _the journalist_ for prosecution. They are trying to target the leaker for disseminating classified information, and got a warrant to search the email account of the person he leaked to. By far the best part of this whole affair has been the journalistic pearl-clutching, as if they would be immune the the same laws permitting such invasions of privact that they covered being passed without uttering a peep. But if a bunch of college students or people with a suspiciously non-caucasian complexion have the same thing happen to them then its fine.
  • 1337biz 13y ago
    Since you seem to be new around here: Please don't start a post with I didn't read the article. Some people on this site put a decent amount of work into their comments. So please spend at least the 5 minutes skimming through the article before making a statement.
    • 3am 13y ago
      "Rosen, who has not been charged in the case, was nonetheless the target of a search warrant" From the article. So in spite of not reading the article, their comment was correct. You do know that it is believed that someone died as a result of this leak?
      • deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
      • hga 13y ago
        That would be this search warrant: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2013/05/20/court-documents-in-leak-case-involving-fox-news-journalist/ http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2013/05/20/court..., page 26, number 46: "Based on the above, there is probable cause to believe that the Reporter (along with Mr. Kim [the prosecuted government employee]) has committed a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 789(d) either as Mr. Kim's co-conspirator and/or aider and abettor..." which continues with the email account to be searched, more justification, etc. Unprecedented in recent history going back to at least the Pentagon Papers?
• glesica 13y ago
  > wrong to target bona fide journalists for criminal prosecution I'm curious to know how you feel about Wikileaks. Part of the problem, I think, is that much of the media (including Fox) more or less cheered the administration on in its pursuit of Wikileaks. Journalism is an act and has a broad scope. Just as bloggers are journalists (finally recognized in recent years), people who accept documents and disseminate the information contained within those documents are, must be, journalists. As long as the media continue to try to draw a weirdly-shaped line between themselves and groups like Wikileaks, there will be no clear protection for journalists.
  • bradleyjg 13y ago
    Aside from conspiracy theories regarding CIA pressure on Swedish prosecutors has the US government actually gone after the wikileaks organization at all? There were certain calls from individual congressmen and, as you mention, journalists, to do so, but I don't remember anything ever coming of it.
  • Nrsolis 13y ago
    If I'm honest, I feel like Wikileaks started off as a good idea and somehow morphed into something else. Journalism is an enterprise that commands a great deal of power. With that power comes a great deal of responsibility. I don't think that Wikileaks used that power responsibly. I also feel like Wikileaks was more akin to a propaganda campaign by a single charismatic man with a little too much anarchist in him. So while I think it goes too far to call Assange a "conspirator", I don't think he did himself any favors in the process of disseminating his acquired information. It's important to remember that intent matters. Wikileaks was trying to subvert the ability of governments to operate in secret and thus reduce their power. He wasn't trying to inform the people about things done in their name. The NYTimes isn't trying to bring down a government. I feel like Wikileaks was. edit:typo
    • e40 13y ago
      I was on Assange's side until I saw the Frontline piece on Wikileaks. I highly recommend it. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/wikileaks/ http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/wikileaks/
• hackinthebochs 13y ago
  >As a reporter, you're allowed to ask a question. You have no right to information a source is legally required to withhold. That said, if they violate that requirement, it's not your fault. Obtaining the private emails of journalists is crossing a line. It makes it impossible for a journalist to guarantee the safety of their sources. This statement seems self-contradictory. If a person leaking classified information does not warrant protection, then it is in fact legitimate to subpoena the private emails of a journalist who is known to be in contact with said person. They are using their ability to access private information under extraordinary circumstances to find someone who is breaking the law. This seems perfectly legitimate. The fact that the information belongs to a journalist doesn't necessitate extra levels of protection against wiretapping warrants--if whatever information was sensitive enough to justify a wiretap on an arbitrary (uninvolved) person, that person being a journalist shouldn't matter. The journalist isn't being targeted, so him being a journalist is irrelevant.