Skip to main content

View Diary: Obama's leak freakout (148 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Well, no. They are being criticized for (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    3goldens, JVolvo

    grabbing call records for 21 AP phone lines.  They are chanting national security, but rifling the AP, not the leaker.

    The AP, by the way,  acted responsibly, holding their story while the interested agencies assessed the risk and protected their people.

    One nice thing about subpoenas -- somebody's got to make the case that the desired action is appropriate to the task.

    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

    by dinotrac on Wed May 22, 2013 at 04:29:24 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Fine, the AP did the 'right' thing (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jj32, jazzence

      But that doesn't absolve the person who gave them the story in the first place. AP didn't break the law, but the leaker did. The subpoena wasn't about prosecuting AP but rather finding the person who called the AP and gave them the story. Subpoeaing information from third parties is not police state tactics but rather a common law enforcement tool. Sealing the subpoena is also not unheard of.

      47 is the new 51!

      by nickrud on Wed May 22, 2013 at 04:37:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You don't know that, actually. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        3goldens

        You are presuming that the information came directly from somebody who had reason to know that it was classified and that they were breaking the law.

        That's probably (not certainlY) the case.  It's unlikely, but not impossible, that the AP's source was actually an intermediary who relayed information along without intent to disclosed classified material.  In such a case, the source would not be breaking the law.

        LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

        by dinotrac on Wed May 22, 2013 at 04:41:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Won't know unless it's (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jj32, 3goldens

          thoroughly investigated, right? If some poor sap relayed information then I'd sure like to know who set him/her up.

          47 is the new 51!

          by nickrud on Wed May 22, 2013 at 04:50:23 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Sure, but...nobody disputes that. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            3goldens

            What's in question is whether grabbing phone records for 21 AP lines is appropriate.

            What, for example, is to stop the FBI from grabbing yoru phone records on the possibility that you might be working with the leaker deep under cover to throw them off the scent?

            LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

            by dinotrac on Wed May 22, 2013 at 05:13:27 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  We do know that, actually. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          3goldens

          If this was about intimidating AP or silencing AP, they would've known about the subpoenas AS SOON AS the records were seized, and there would've been a bunch of bogus charges and such.

          Which isn't the case at all.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (154)
  • Community (72)
  • Baltimore (68)
  • Bernie Sanders (49)
  • Civil Rights (38)
  • Freddie Gray (38)
  • Elections (28)
  • Hillary Clinton (27)
  • Culture (24)
  • Racism (23)
  • Education (21)
  • Labor (21)
  • Economy (19)
  • Rescued (19)
  • Law (19)
  • Media (19)
  • 2016 (16)
  • Science (16)
  • Politics (15)
  • Environment (15)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site