Skip to main content

View Diary: Journalist Surveillance Goes Far Beyond AP (97 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Here's Marcy Wheeler's report of the facts (6+ / 0-)

    "When people spin this in partisan terms to obfuscate the truth, it does a real disservice to normal people not in the big club in DC. Many of them will be hurting...That is why I write."--priceman

    by SouthernLiberalinMD on Mon May 20, 2013 at 09:33:27 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Is that the right link? Nothing on DPRK. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      virginislandsguy

      Also, you didn't ask nicely.

      As far as this goes, I think the issue is that what the AP reported didn't entirely contradict Carney's statements , and allegedly threatened to expose a British agent.  (I don't know if that was true; Carney used seemingly ambiguous words like "plotting" and "credible information," and this was apparently caught early and the story reports Obama was told there wasn't a threat to the public at that time in April.  Still, Carney shouldn't have answered the question.)

      More importantly, to the extent the searches just obtained the mere fact of phone calls, it's a relatively narrow search given the apparent circumstances of the leak.   The information didn't show any more than that the AP were recipients of possible national security information, and even if they knew the information was obtained unlawfully, there would be nothing illegal in publishing it. (Bartnicki v. Vopper.)  With Rosen, he played a much more active role in bringing about the leak itself, not acting a passive conduit or cultivating a relationship such that he could be a conduit, thereby justifying a more intrusive search, but not a prior restraint on publication.  None would have implicated a testimonial privilege, though, which the administration supports creating legislatively at the federal level (at least officially).

      For all the talk of "unprecedented," Rosen should know what the line is.  The AP did nothing wrong, except paraphrase in a highly misleading way in the underlying story, but they also didn't suffer any intrusion upon a privacy interest, just bare phone logs, the fact of which they'd have to disclose in the event there were a testimonial shield, to justify why their reporters wouldn't testify about the content of the related communications.

      Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

      by Loge on Mon May 20, 2013 at 09:56:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  100 reporters' phone logs over two months (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gooderservice

        is narrow?
        Seizing two months' worth of phone logs isn't any intrusion upon a privacy interest?

        OK.

        As far as asking nicely, is concerned, that was nicely.

        "When people spin this in partisan terms to obfuscate the truth, it does a real disservice to normal people not in the big club in DC. Many of them will be hurting...That is why I write."--priceman

        by SouthernLiberalinMD on Mon May 20, 2013 at 10:18:50 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  the narrowness is in obtaining logs themselves, (0+ / 0-)

          versus the content of the communications.  This discloses nothing more than what phone lines were used, and for how long; not what was said, or necessarily who was on the line.  Yes, two months is narrow, and the number of reporters would seem to depend on the number who worked on a given story (which was clearly an aggregation of a number of different threads).  The downside is it would include a variety of records unrelated to the subject of the investigation, but outside of conspiracy theories, nobody does anything with that information.  

          I expect pleases and thank yous from Southerners (though not Marylanders, who are terrible drivers), and nothing stopped you from drawing your own conclusions from the story versus believing a link was sufficient (clearly not, since Marcy Wheeler wasn't answering the same question you were trying to).

          Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

          by Loge on Mon May 20, 2013 at 10:28:02 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Marcy Wheeler was establishing the facts (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            gooderservice

            of what happened when, and what AP did that might have brought about such a response from the administration. You said you wanted to analyze those facts; I provided a link. You're upset I didn't say please?

            OK.

            Thank you for analyzing the facts.

            "When people spin this in partisan terms to obfuscate the truth, it does a real disservice to normal people not in the big club in DC. Many of them will be hurting...That is why I write."--priceman

            by SouthernLiberalinMD on Mon May 20, 2013 at 10:43:41 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  not upset at all (0+ / 0-)

              pulling your chain.  

              I thought I had done a 10,000 meter one for the North Korea / Rosen situation, and I thought by that link you were suggesting I hadn't.  

              let's move on.

              Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

              by Loge on Mon May 20, 2013 at 10:49:28 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site