Skip to main content

Attorney General Eric Holder
NBC News National Investigative Correspondent Co-conspirator Michael Isikoff reports:
Attorney General Eric Holder signed off on a controversial search warrant that identified Fox News reporter James Rosen as a “possible co-conspirator” in violations of the Espionage Act and authorized seizure of his private emails, a law enforcement official told NBC News on Thursday.

The disclosure of the attorney general’s role came as President Barack Obama, in a major speech on his counterterrorism policy, said Holder had agreed to review Justice Department guidelines governing investigations that involve journalists.

"I am troubled by the possibility that leak investigations may chill the investigative journalism that holds government accountable," Obama said. "Journalists should not be at legal risk for doing their jobs."

Assuming he shares the generally understood definition of what a journalist's job is, what President Obama said yesterday is entirely correct. The problem is that it's completely at odds with the legal rationale his administration used to obtain the Rosen search warrant.

It doesn't matter that Rosen hasn't been charged with a crime—the fact is that the search warrant accused him of criminal acts without giving him chance to respond to it before it was executed. That's pretty much the definition of being put at legal risk. Unless the guideline review renounces the tactic used in the Rosen case, the administration's policies will still be at odds with the principle articulated by the president.

Meanwhile, Fox News chairman Roger Ailes yesterday released a statement describing that administration's actions as "an attempt to intimidate Fox News." But while Ailes and his team will no doubt try to spin this into a partisan confrontation, the First Amendment doesn't say that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of The Fox News." Especially given the AP phone records subpoena, the issue isn't some sort of political witch hunt against Fox. Instead, it's that the government put its desire to stop leaks ahead of the Constitutional right to freedom of the press without even giving the press a chance to defend itself. That's a problem that needs to be fixed.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I'm curious... (15+ / 0-)

    Was there not a better person President Obama could have chosen for attorney general?

    •  He could probably walk into any courtroom (8+ / 0-)

      foyer in the country blindfolded, swing a stick, and nominate a better candidate via random whacking.

      For this you went to college?

      by Not A Bot on Fri May 24, 2013 at 08:15:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Can think of several dozen, including (8+ / 0-)

      a douche-bag known as John Edwards.

      Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
      I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
      —Spike Milligan

      by polecat on Fri May 24, 2013 at 08:15:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  MUST READ - the emails allegedly (22+ / 0-)

      sent from Rosen to the government agent.  They are quoted in full in the DoJ's affidavit, here is a snippet:

      “Let’s break some news, and expose muddle-headed policy when we see it, or force the administration’s hand to go in the right direction, if possible. The only way to this is to EXPOSE the policy…and the only way to that is with authoritative EVIDENCE.”
      The affidavit really alleges some disgusting behavior by Rosen and alleges he participated with the government agent in releasing CLASSIFIED information.

      Newscorpse:

      Rosen’s admission that he was seeking to “force the administration’s hand” in a direction that he believes is not “muddle-headded” is undeniable proof that he was acting as an operative, and not as a journalist. If Rosen thought that the government’s policy was wrong, he could certainly say so without retribution. If he thought that the government was engaged in wrongdoing, he could certainly pursue and disclose evidence of that. But to seduce a government employee to illegally transfer classified documents in order to alter government policy merely because he disagrees with it, and absent any corruption or controversy, is a purely political act.

      The facts enumerated in the affidavit clearly reveal improper behavior and intent on Rosen’s part. And it is not difficult to see why the judge, a Reagan appointee, concluded that there was probable cause to grant the request to examine Rosen’s phone records.

      As I said at the beginning of this article “No matter what one thinks about the propriety of a government agency examining the phone records of a purported journalist, James Rosen does not deserve to regarded as one.” And it is not coincidental that Rosen works for Fox News where political advocacy, not journalism, is their core mission.

      Fox has been working non-stop since their inception to “force the hand” of government, and not in a good direction. Don’t forget that the CEO of Fox News, Roger Ailes, was a political operative for Richard Nixon and other ultra-rightists before he took the reins of a cable news network. And his boss, Rupert Murdoch, has spent decades exerting undue influence over governments around the world. Are the pieces beginning to fit together now? Fox News is not, and never has been, news.

      My heroes have the heart to live the life I want to live.

      by JLFinch on Fri May 24, 2013 at 08:34:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Holder was COMPLETELY RIGHT (11+ / 0-)

        in this matter.

        Go to the link, read the full affidavit, then come back and see if you continue to feel like whining about Holder.

        My heroes have the heart to live the life I want to live.

        by JLFinch on Fri May 24, 2013 at 08:36:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Why do you think journalists report news? (15+ / 0-)

        Did Upton Sinclair write about the terrible conditions in the meat packing industry as a dispassionate, neutral observer?

        Just because journalists have motivations for the stories they pursue doesn't magically take away the rights of a free press.  Hint: journalists have had partisan motivations for the things they write since before the founding of the country.

      •  *gasp* Activist journalism! I'm shocked!! (5+ / 0-)

        Wait, no I'm not. Why would reporters care so much about uncovering wrongdoing if they didn't think it'd have any impact?

        And no shit it was “CLASSIFIED.” It's not illegal to publish classified information, only ever to divulge it.

        Code Monkey like freedom / Code Monkey like peace and justice too
        Code Monkey very nerdy man / With big warm fuzzy bleeding heart
        Code Monkey like you!

        Formerly known as Jyrinx.

        by Code Monkey on Fri May 24, 2013 at 08:45:09 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well, actually, (7+ / 0-)

          the Espionage Act does specify that publishing classified information is also illegal, and the Supreme Court has upheld the ability of the government to prosecute the press, or anyone else, for publishing or even receiving classified information (Gorin v United States, NY Times v United States, etc)

          There's a reason many spy-handlers have diplomatic covers--- to render them immune from this kind of prosecution. (They just get persona non grata'd out of the country.

          The government will often let the press off the hook as a courtesy, especially if the leak is not too severe.  But if it, say, tips of the North Koreans to the kind of information our spies are accessing, which undoubtedly led to the capture of our informants (as easily as Rosen's informant was caught)... well, that might be too severe a leak.  Especially since the leak served no public purpose--- the journalist was explicit that his goal was to scoop his competition.

          Conservatives need to realize that their Silent Moral Majority is neither silent, nor moral, nor a majority.

          by nominalize on Fri May 24, 2013 at 08:58:13 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  So why did Ellsburg walk? (7+ / 0-)

            Or the people who reported on Bush's domestic spying?

            Or the seven zillionth reporter to be briefed on how awesomely we're doing fighting our secret wars?

            Newspapers publish classified information all the time. There's no possible way it's simply illegal to do so.

            (And BTW, Obama's DoJ has started twice as many Espionage Act prosecutions of journalists as all other Presidents combined. You're telling me it's only because people are leaking more?)

            Code Monkey like freedom / Code Monkey like peace and justice too
            Code Monkey very nerdy man / With big warm fuzzy bleeding heart
            Code Monkey like you!

            Formerly known as Jyrinx.

            by Code Monkey on Fri May 24, 2013 at 09:03:41 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Ellsburg walked as a courtesy from Richard Nixon. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Code Monkey, Indiana Bob

              Or so we hear from some quarters.

              A slower bleed-out is not a sustainable value.

              by MrJayTee on Fri May 24, 2013 at 09:09:08 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Ellsburg (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              KayCeSF, deep info

              was not a reporter.

              He was not contacted by a report who cajoled him into leaking evidence to "force the government's hand".

              He leaked the information.

              Apparently the Supreme Court found that printing the information was protected.

              Also, the Pentagon Papers were embarrassing and showed that the Pentagon knew the war was not winnable and that the administration lied.

              In this instance, the leak revealed that a bomb had been intercepted and put people lives in direct danger in real time.

              Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. Barack Obama

              by delphine on Fri May 24, 2013 at 09:29:09 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Er, right. Still. The NYT walked. (5+ / 0-)

                And it's not like investigative journalists just sit back and wait for envelopes to appear on their desks. Soliciting classified documents — cajoling, even — is part of the job.

                And the harm from the leaks goes to the criminality of the leaker, not the reporter. There's no national security clause in the First Amendment.

                Finally, Rosen's motivations are irrelevant. There's no way American courts should be adjudicating journalistic ethics.

                Code Monkey like freedom / Code Monkey like peace and justice too
                Code Monkey very nerdy man / With big warm fuzzy bleeding heart
                Code Monkey like you!

                Formerly known as Jyrinx.

                by Code Monkey on Fri May 24, 2013 at 09:34:53 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  BS, it was reported 17 days (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                3goldens

                after they had the devise and 'perps' in their hands. You actually think the spook's save lives and keep us safe?  right. As far as Rosen's big leak about NK being a threat to security, hahahaha. As Jon Stewart said North Korea answers everything with nuclear tests, they have a nuclear test based economy.

                http://www.thedailyshow.com/...
                 

            •  Great questions! (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              KayCeSF

              1) Ellsberg got a mistrial due to sloppy investigations.  Might as well ask why OJ walked.  

              2) The NY Times case was about censoring the publication of the papers, not the legality of the leak and the solicitation thereof.  

              3) How do we know that the reporters during the Bush administration didn't have their phones tapped and e-mails searched?  Remember: we don't really need warrants anymore, thanks to FISA.  

              4) Obama has always made it clear that he is cracking down on leaks, and the Congress has long been in full-throated support.  Me too, for that matter.  

              5) You point out that a mere handful of reporters have gotten their records searched over the last 4+ years, while the bulk of reporters working with leaks have not, and yet you're actually worried about a chilling effect?  

              Conservatives need to realize that their Silent Moral Majority is neither silent, nor moral, nor a majority.

              by nominalize on Fri May 24, 2013 at 10:15:12 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Obama's DoJ is pursuing more Esionage Act (6+ / 0-)

                cases than all other administrations combined — twice. You're telling me that won't have a chilling effect?

                They only need to go after a few. The rest will get the hint.

                Finally, are you saying that even Nixon didn't argue that what the reporters did in soliciting the Pentagon Papers was illegal?

                Code Monkey like freedom / Code Monkey like peace and justice too
                Code Monkey very nerdy man / With big warm fuzzy bleeding heart
                Code Monkey like you!

                Formerly known as Jyrinx.

                by Code Monkey on Fri May 24, 2013 at 10:21:13 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  The Rosen case was in 2009 (0+ / 0-)

                  and that slowed down exactly, nobody.  

                  Conservatives need to realize that their Silent Moral Majority is neither silent, nor moral, nor a majority.

                  by nominalize on Fri May 24, 2013 at 10:39:44 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  If we only find out now, (0+ / 0-)

                    how can it have had its chilling effect already?

                    And how the fuck can we be sure that secrets didn't get published that would have been?

                    Code Monkey like freedom / Code Monkey like peace and justice too
                    Code Monkey very nerdy man / With big warm fuzzy bleeding heart
                    Code Monkey like you!

                    Formerly known as Jyrinx.

                    by Code Monkey on Fri May 24, 2013 at 11:25:08 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  the affidavit was unsealed in 2011 (0+ / 0-)

                      and journalists have been talking about "chilling effects" for decades.  Always about "it could happen."  Yeah, and universal background checks "could lead" to a tyrannical gun grab.  

                      Leaks will still happen if there's something big to leak (like, say, the Pentagon Papers).  Ordinary intel on North Korean nuclear tests is not the same thing, and isn't worth breaking the law for.  If journalists don't work as much getting leaks, then a) policy wonks in DC won't have as much to read, boo hoo, and b) they'll have to use other methods of investigative journalism.  It's not like there was no such thing as journalism before leaks.  

                      Conservatives need to realize that their Silent Moral Majority is neither silent, nor moral, nor a majority.

                      by nominalize on Fri May 24, 2013 at 01:48:20 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

              •  You fully support crack downs on leaks (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                aliasalias, 3goldens

                Just what is it you are so afraid to know?   That you no longer live in a free country?

          •  Espionage Act was unconstitutional from the start (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Dallasdoc, 3goldens

            People forget that it was passed because Woodrow Wilson wanted to suppress anti-war activists.  It's a disgrace that it's still on the books.

        •  read the affidavit (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          oregonrick, KayCeSF, Tony Situ

          delineating facts supporting probable cause, which a Reagan-appointed judge agreed with

          My heroes have the heart to live the life I want to live.

          by JLFinch on Fri May 24, 2013 at 09:00:53 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  So, what wrongdoing was Rosen uncovering? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Tony Situ

          "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." - Eleanor Roosevelt

          by eden4barack08 on Fri May 24, 2013 at 11:13:45 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  "The media" had a major role in (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        oregonrick, doroma

        allowing the US to attack Iraq. They went along with Bushco in deceiving Americans. Some journalists may have a problem with admitting that some of their own are not doing their job honestly, perhaps to an, arguably, felonious extent. But those are the facts. And the journalism trade has been tarnished in a way that may take an entire generation to undo.

        Welcome To The Disinformation Age!

        by kitebro on Fri May 24, 2013 at 08:58:41 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Rosen is not a journalist (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MissTrial, Blicero, KayCeSF

          he is a political operative

          Read the affidavit.

          His emails are signed "hugs and kisses"

          He is an obnoxious political prick with the goal of fucking over Obama.  He is not a journalist.

          My heroes have the heart to live the life I want to live.

          by JLFinch on Fri May 24, 2013 at 09:12:56 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Gee, then how did I discover Bush was full of it (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Victor Ward, Dallasdoc

          I certainly didn't get the news from Hillary Clinton. There was all you needed to know in the press. You just had to actually read it all.  They reported the facts.  The news was that there were no facts that justified invading a sovereign state.   The news was that age old allies like France did not believe there were any facts.   You do still have to read to find facts not just the headlines and it's the facts that are becoming increasingly classified for no purpose other than making sure that all the American people get is the spin.   But I have to admit they're doing a darn good job because people don't even know how to look for facts anymore when they read.  But then you don't usually find the facts in a Tweet.  

  •  Yeah, and many here at Daily Kos (15+ / 0-)

    are also trying to spin this into a partisan confrontation.  

    while Ailes and his team will no doubt try to spin this into a partisan confrontation
    •  Yeah sure. Do you have a problem with the so (5+ / 0-)

      called free press whose reporting secret information that could cause the death of out troops, agents and other people? You have a problem with Holder investigating that?

      •  That's not the press' problem. (6+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MPociask, MrJayTee, PDiddie, TJ, Dallasdoc, 3goldens

        If it was a well kept secret, the press wouldn't know.

        •  Isn't that what this prosecution is about? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          shaharazade

          Shutting leaks, so the secrets stay well-kept?  

          It's hardly fair to say it isn't the press's fault if the government can't keep its secrets, and then complain that the government takes measures to keep its secrets.  Especially when the revelation of the secrets served no public purpose, and the journalist was explicit that his goal was merely to scoop his competition.  

          Conservatives need to realize that their Silent Moral Majority is neither silent, nor moral, nor a majority.

          by nominalize on Fri May 24, 2013 at 09:01:39 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Prosecuting the leaker is absolutely appropriate. (9+ / 0-)

            You don't have a first amendment right to leak. But you can't in the process of prosecuting a leaker run roughshod over the 1st amendment in pursuit of a internal management policy. Once you hit up against the press, you're just going to have to stop. You're just going to have to fire the person and perhaps seek some other civil penalty. In other words, too fucking bad.

            •  Wow! Who knew that the First Amendment (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              wadingo, ccyd, KayCeSF, edwardssl

              was the only ABSOLUTE amendment; no restrictions whatsoever.  (This is the same argument the GOP has for the Second Amendment, ironically.)

              Please, someone tell me where is the line for the press?  Do they have an absolute right to obtain government secrets and to print them, without restriction?  

              Is your statement true in all instances:  

              Once you hit up against the press, you're just going to have to stop.
              Should the government always assume that journalists are NOT spies?  Has a spy ever "posed" as a journalist to get classified information and then passed that information on to other countries?

              Does it matter in the least whether a judge signs off on warrants to obtain records from the press?  

              The media makes this seem so cut and dry, but I have many reservations.  

              •  Yes, they do have the right to try to obtain (5+ / 0-)

                and print government secrets. It's an absolutely critical right, because otherwise the government can do whatever the fuck it wants and then just classify it.

                Code Monkey like freedom / Code Monkey like peace and justice too
                Code Monkey very nerdy man / With big warm fuzzy bleeding heart
                Code Monkey like you!

                Formerly known as Jyrinx.

                by Code Monkey on Fri May 24, 2013 at 09:49:28 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Yes, they do have a right (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                3goldens

                to print anything.  You may not like it, but they do have that right.

                Call your representative and senators and the white house (lack of capitalization intended) to STOP this crazy warmongering with Iran, please.

                by Indiana Bob on Fri May 24, 2013 at 10:54:08 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Actually they do NOT (0+ / 0-)

                have an absolute right to print "anything".

                18 U.S.C. § 793 : US Code - Section 793: Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

                They don't have the right to print anything about munitions (including the storage of), or about anything that could negatively impact national defense.

                This story was about the fact that the U.S. had intercepted  and was storing a bomb, with the added benefit of exposing both an operation and operatives who were in danger of being murdered for their participation.

                Specific application of this law in this case differentiates from the Pentagon Papers and other leaks that weren't about munitions during a time of war and stories that would harm national defense.

                If all they claimed was "national defense", it might be a stretch, but it exposed the infiltration of terrorist groups being done in furtherance of our defense.  And it involved munitions.  

                And it basically states that if Kim is guilty of leaking under this law, then the person he leaked to is also guilty.

                Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. Barack Obama

                by delphine on Fri May 24, 2013 at 11:06:52 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  The Supreme Court is clear: (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              KayCeSF

              that you don't have the right to publish just anything you want concerning classified documents.

              And the Espionage Act itself has no press exception--- in any legal sense, soliciting classified information is like having someone steal jewels for you, and Mr Rosen was violating the law.  By any letter of the law, Mr Rosen is a co-conspirator in a crime.

              Now, the government goes easy on reporters, mindful of the public interest in protecting a free press (and mindful of the bad PR of doing something like this).  Indeed, in this case, you'll notice that they didn't actually charge Mr Rosen in the end, despite his flagrant violations of the Espionage Act.  And they publicly asked for a warrant, which, with FISA, they didn't really need to do.  If that's not going easy on journalists, what is?  

              Compare that to what's going on with Julian Assange, who, as a webhost, is not given the privileges of the press.  And even then, Assange isn't on record as saying his primary motivation was to scoop his competition.

              There is the balance between security and free speech.  Just like there's one between security and the right to bear arms.  And the same for the rest of our Constitutional rights. The balance is never at one far end or the other, but somewhere in the middle, and from what I've seen, it's pretty close to the middle.  

              Conservatives need to realize that their Silent Moral Majority is neither silent, nor moral, nor a majority.

              by nominalize on Fri May 24, 2013 at 09:59:54 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Though you could say the same thing about (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Dallasdoc

                the Pentagon Papers as well.  Shouldn't the NYT have been prosecuted for publishing those as well?  Either you support cracking down on leaks including prosecuting the press or you don't.

                You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

                by Throw The Bums Out on Fri May 24, 2013 at 10:23:35 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  That's a straw man question (0+ / 0-)

                  What you propose is putting the fulcrum all the way over on the security side, which is something no one here is arguing for.  And something that I explicitly argued against one paragraph ago.  

                  As for the Pentagon Papers, the choice to prosecute Neil Sheehan (the journalist) would, like this case, depend on the content and the danger it posed.  In neither case did that danger rise to the level of charging the journalist.   But, as the SCOTUS has routinely pointed out, there are situations where it would (see Near v Minnesota for instance)  

                  Conservatives need to realize that their Silent Moral Majority is neither silent, nor moral, nor a majority.

                  by nominalize on Fri May 24, 2013 at 10:36:38 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  The danger level doesn't matter. Either Neil (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Dallasdoc, 3goldens

                    should have been prosecuted for publishing classified information or he shouldn't, the same with Rosen.  You don't get to have it both ways.

                    You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

                    by Throw The Bums Out on Fri May 24, 2013 at 10:40:49 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Not true. (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      edwardssl, Tony Situ

                      Sometimes the evidence obtained by the search warrant results in no charges being brought.  It would seem that in this case, the evidence wasn't as clear-cut as the DOJ needed to bring charges against Rosen.  A search warrant is a device to collect evidence, not an indictment.

                      I do not feel obligated to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use -- Galileo Galilei

                      by ccyd on Fri May 24, 2013 at 10:47:15 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

              •  Not a FISA situation (0+ / 0-)

                FISA applies only when you have communications originating or terminating outside the United States.

                I do not feel obligated to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use -- Galileo Galilei

                by ccyd on Fri May 24, 2013 at 10:45:11 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly what is (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        happymisanthropy

        the "so called free press"?

        Is that the press that's being intimidated and investigated by the government?

        If so - we agree....there's no free press when the government acts like this.

    •  READ THE AFFIDAVIT (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      doroma, Blicero, KayCeSF, Tony Situ

      http://apps.washingtonpost.com/...

      then see if you still think you should be whining about this

      My heroes have the heart to live the life I want to live.

      by JLFinch on Fri May 24, 2013 at 08:41:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Does the name Judith Miller mean anything to you? (10+ / 0-)

    This leak was not an issue of government corruption it was a national security matter and more than that it probably endangered a foreign undercover asset.  The famous SCOTUS case which says that no interpretation of the free speech would allow shouting fire in a crowded theater.... Or published troop ship movements in war time.  Yes, I know we are not at war, but the analogy is still apt.  If someone in the FBI or national security apparatus is leaking to the press, then the government has a right to investigate and if it cannot be discovered in any other way, then they have a right to find out who reporters are talking to.

    Judith Miller, oh yeah, the reporter gallantly protecting her source, Scooter Libby.  Would you rather Scooter had never been found out?

    •  um, no it didn't (11+ / 0-)

      The AP already agreed to withhold the story until the agent was out of danger. And the CIA in turn told AP there was no longer any danger and it was now OK to run the story.

      Please refrain from posting opinions about topics you don't know. It doesn't help.

    •  but but but if Bush would have done this!!! (13+ / 0-)

      Miller was thrown in freaking jail and everyone on this blogged cheered and thought that was the right thing to happen.

      There were no 1st Amendment being trampled upon! outcries as there is over President Obama's admin.  Scooter Libby would be called a whistleblower here now and the dead ass Robert Novak would be considered a brave soul who stood up to the powers of intimidation.

      Talk about your hypocrisy.

      My belief that the press can be bad and not above the law has not changed due to a change in the administration, unlike some people's views here.

    •  Please stop with the national security BS. (8+ / 0-)

      The AP withheld publishing the story at the request of the Obama administration until after the bomb had been secured.

      From The Laughable Currently Operative AP Pushback Story:

      So the government rolled up the plot in April — almost certainly by April 24 — and then the AP came to the CIA and White House with their story about a foiled plot on May 2.

      It’s that timing that undermines the claim that the government still hoped to use the mole to get at Ibrahim al-Asiri. Because to maintain that claim, you’d have to explain how an AQAP operative who had been entrusted with the latest version of Ibrahim al-Asiri’s UndieBomb sometime in early April, had left (at least as far as Sanaa), had not apparently succeeded in his mission (which was, after all, meant to be a suicide bombing), could return to AQAP without the UndieBomb and infiltrate even further than he had the first time.

      “Oh, hi, AQAP gatekeeper” — their story must imagine the mole saying as he returned to AQAP — “I’ve both failed in my mission and somehow lost the bomb you gave me, but based on that would you be willing to let me spend some quality time with even higher-ranking AQAP operatives?”

      The government must believe AQAP has far worse counterintelligence than Asiri’s longevity would seem to suggest. Alternately, they’re just inventing stories right now to justify their seizure.

      •  Um, emptywheel makes no sense (0+ / 0-)

        As John Brennan's case proves, failing upwards happens all the time.  It's human psychology at work, and any reasonable person is aware of that.  "Shit floats," as the saying goes.  Why would failing upwards not happen in Al-Qaeda, too?

        In the history of moles, in espionage, organized crime, and war, it's very normal to come up with a plausible backstory about why the mission failed.  People do that all the time, even when they're not moles--- BS'ing away failure is a normal human trait.

        Emptywheel's glib suppositions are naïve with a veneer of worldliness.   I wouldn't put too much stock into them.  And speaking of failing upwards, I see this epic fail of a post being circulated all over.  Nobody is immune to their own psychology.

        Conservatives need to realize that their Silent Moral Majority is neither silent, nor moral, nor a majority.

        by nominalize on Fri May 24, 2013 at 09:09:12 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Oh, it's you, with the same fact-free (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          deep info, aliasalias, Dallasdoc, 3goldens

          defense.  So I'll just copy and paste what I wrote to you the last time you trotted this out:

          "You do realize that what she wrote there is simply taking the logic put forth by the administration to its logical conclusion?  A supposed suicide bomber, who is supposed to wearing the bomb, is going to be able to say that he was stymied?  Seriously?  The only way to be stymied when one is wearing the bomb is to be detected at security or to be on the plane and try to blow up the bomb and the bomb doesn't work, either of which would have garnered an enormous amount of press.  

          And the operation was not blown by the AP.  By public statements, which many people, including emptywheel, have linked to, the mole was already out of the country and the perpetrator of the Undiebomb plot had been killed before the AP printed its story, as it had held the printing for several days upon request by the administration.  In fact, as emptywheel, among others, has pointed out, John Brennan himself had already publicly claimed that the plot was under control because there was a mole on the inside well before the AP printed its story."

          BTW, do you still want to diss the ACLU?

          •  It's not its logical conclusion, (0+ / 0-)

            unless you have no sense of human psychology.  That's why it's naïve.

            It's well known that even failed suicide bombers are welcomed back for all sorts of reasons (one being the scarcity of volunteers).  If the 9/11 conspirators had failed for whatever reason, they wouldn't have been cut off either.  The assumptions that emptywheel makes despite a lack of basic knowledge is also naïve.

            Also, I didn't diss the ACLU, I dissed your appeal-to-authority fallacy. I don't care if the ACLU is upset about this; I don't always agree with them just because they're the ACLU.  Don't you know it's rude to put things into other people's mouths?  That includes words.  I come here for civil discussion.  If you can't provide that, there are plenty of other kossacks who can.

            Conservatives need to realize that their Silent Moral Majority is neither silent, nor moral, nor a majority.

            by nominalize on Fri May 24, 2013 at 10:27:39 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Sob. (5+ / 0-)

              I trust emptywheel and the ACLU, both of whom have long expertise in this area, before someone like you who civilly uprates fact-free assertions that national security was breached, civilly calls emptywheel naive, and civilly makes fact-free assertions that the ACLU is wrong in this case.

              As for your civil "study" of human psychology, as I noted above, it civilly leaves out the fact that what you describe is impossible.  The only ways for the Undiebomb to have failed is for the Undiebomber to have been caught at airport security or to have tried to detonate the bomb on the plane and the bomb didn't go off, in which case he also would have been detained.  So either way he would have been detained and then brought to trial and there would have been incontrovertible evidence of his actions--hence a conviction.

              And it's also possible that he would have been put into some type of long-term military detention and then tried in front of a military commission.

              In either case, he would have been locked up by us for a looong looong time.  

              So let me then ask you, as civilly as possible: How, then, could he have been "welcomed back?"

      •  what you quoted is mere supposition. (0+ / 0-)

        I don' know why people keep posting it as if it's supposed to be a trump card.

    •  We don't have the First Amendment to protect (10+ / 0-)

      the views of people with whom we agree. We have it to protect the views of people with whom we disagree.

      Judith Miller went to jail for many days for contempt, rather than reveal the identity of her source. The government, rather than confront Rosen and demand his sources, decided to spy on him.

      Are you saying the government was within its rights to spy on Rosen on the grounds of 'national security'? If so, can you please point me to that spot in the Constitution or case law where 'national security' trumps press freedom from government intrusion?

      •  The problem with your question (4+ / 0-)

        can be summed up in one other question:

        Can you point me to the spot in the Constitution where security trumps the right to bear arms?  

        The fact is, the risk to security has always led to restrictions on the first amendment concerning classified information, depending on the nature of the risk and the motivation of the publication.  (see Near v Minnesota, cited in NY Times v US, and also see Schenck v US.)

        And is it spying on someone to ask a judge for a warrant to search their records pursuant to a criminal investigation, then searching their records?  The judge approved the warrant, in line with the 4th amendment.  

        I know it's easy to get upset about "spying on the press", but this wasn't spying on the press.  This was a routine investigation of a leak of classified information.  I don't see why they wouldn't check Mr Rosen's phone records once they knew he'd been frequenting the suspected leaker.  

        Conservatives need to realize that their Silent Moral Majority is neither silent, nor moral, nor a majority.

        by nominalize on Fri May 24, 2013 at 09:29:23 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The Rosen Affair went way beyond merely getting a (5+ / 0-)

          warrant for phone records. Apparently, the FBI monitored Rosen's physical comings and goings from the State Department building, read his emails, and so on. Hence, "spying on the press."

          You're seeking to excuse what even ardent defenders of Obama, like Michael Tomasky, conclude goes way over the line in violating freedom of the press. As Tomasky says, it really doesn't matter whether Rosen was reporting for Fox News or The Daily Worker -- in either case the government's behavior is outrageous.

          •  I'm not a fan of (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            KayCeSF, jdsnebraska, Tony Situ

            appeal-to-authority fallacies. You'll have to try harder than that.

            But let me get this straight... the FBI, in pursuing leaks of sensitive information, watched the door of the State Department to see who went in about the time the suspected leaker was leaking documents.  

            Of course, you have to wonder how a police state would let people just walk right into their buildings to read their secret documents.

            What this means is that in the future, reporters will have to meet their leakers away from the leaker's office. OH NO!!!!  

            And... they got a warrant to search his e-mails, in regards to violations of the Espionage Act... a judge agreed to it, and that is the hallmark of tyranny?  

            Conservatives need to realize that their Silent Moral Majority is neither silent, nor moral, nor a majority.

            by nominalize on Fri May 24, 2013 at 10:18:53 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  If you aren't a fan of 'appeal-to-authority' (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              BradyB, deep info, aliasalias, 3goldens

              arguments, you probably won't agree with the ACLU and the Electronic Freedom Foundation's strenuous objections to the government's behavior in the Affair Rosen either. Is that really where you want to place yourself, in opposition to the ACLU? If so, have at it.

              The affidavit Holder signed cited Rosen as a 'possible co-conspirator'. Are you associating yourself with that rubbish? If so, be my guest. But please understand that it is not, nor has it ever been, a crime to report on or publish classified information.

              •  The affidavit Holder signed (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Tony Situ

                cited Rosen as "an aider and abettor and/or co-conspirator" (point 5, page 3)

                 I don't think anyone would dispute that Mr Rosen was aiding and abetting this violation of 18 USC s 793(d).  As it happens, 18 USC s 793(g) says that conspiracy to violate 793(d) is punishable by the same punishment as 793(d) (the same way getaway drivers are punished the same as the robbers).  In that sense, being an aider and abettor may make him a co-conspirator.

                Now, whether he was a co-conspirator would depend on the evidence, and that's what the warrant-seekers sought to seek. With a warrant. A judge found suitable probable cause to accept the warrant.  

                Now, as the affidavit also points out, the Privacy Protection Act specifically protects journalists from this kind of prosecution... UNLESS the act they abetted was a violation of 18 USC 793(d).  

                You know what? All this is in the freakin' affidavit.  Why don't you bother reading it yourself.  

                Conservatives need to realize that their Silent Moral Majority is neither silent, nor moral, nor a majority.

                by nominalize on Fri May 24, 2013 at 01:56:24 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Oh, come on. By that logic, Neil Sheehan (the (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  3goldens

                  reporter who broke the story of the Pentagon Papers, having received Ellsberg's leak of them) would be a "co-conspirator," an "aider-abetter" to Ellsberg's leak of the PP. Not even the slimy Nixon stooped to the level of going after Sheehan. (Although one can say with a fairly high degree of confidence that had Nixon done so, his attack on press freedom would have been met by howls of outrage, and rightly so, here on DKos.)

                  It is not now, nor has it ever been, a crime to report on or to publish classified information. What this fishing expedition does is to criminalize the pursuit of information. Whether you call that 'aidingabetting' or 'co-conspirator' doesn't change the fact that the subject of the warrant was a friggin' reporter.

                  I'll tell you what: I'll read the affidavit if you'll read the ACLU's condemnation of the government's overreach:

                  The ACLU's take on the Rosen Affair

                  •  You also ought to read this fascinating account (0+ / 0-)

                    of Nixon's decision-making in the Pentagon Papers affair:

                    Nixon tapes on the Pentagon Papers

                    What emerges is that Nixon decided to go after the entire Times newspaper, instead of the individual journalist, so as to prevent publication of what had already been leaked.   The SCOTUS nixed the publication ban in their NY Times v US decision. They said nothing about the actual violation of the Espionage Act.

                    In doing so, SCOTUS upheld the first judge's decision on the case.  He was a recent Nixon appointee, and refused to grant an injunction on the material, on the grounds that this was not worth banning:

                    No cogent reasons were advanced as to why these documents except in the general framework of embarrassment… would vitally affect the security of the nation."
                    That is to say--- the Pentagon Papers were very embarrassing but did not endanger our national security.  So they got a pass.
                    As well they should have: The Pentagon Papers detailed how multiple administrations lied and cheated us into the Vietnam War, and undermined governments overseas. (When the Bush administration lied us into Iraq, they made sure not to leave the evidence behind).

                    Now, the Rosen leak did nothing but tell North Korea we had spies who'd leaked to us what their plans would be if we put on sanctions. This is the article in question.  That's nothing worth breaking the law for.  Now, given the speed with which we found our leaker once we knew there was a leak, even with warrants and due process, imagine how fast the North Koreans found their leaker.  And of course, their spies they execute their spies forthwith, and ship their entire families off to labor camps. I'm sure that while they're enjoying their scoop of gruel after a grueling day at backbreaking work, they'll take consolation in the fact that at least Mr Rosen got his scoop.

                    The fact is, the crime isn't reporting or publishing the information.  That isn't at issue. The crime was leaking the information, and the reporter helped that crime happen by soliciting it.  The DOJ asserted that nature of the information voided the reporter's protections under the Privacy Protection Act, and a judge agreed enough to permit the warrant. Those are all facts.  You say "it cannot be a crime, because magic press badge." Well, I've pointed out the law to you, and just saying "it can't be" doesn't change the fact that according to the laws passed by the legislative branch, signed and carried out by the executive branch, and repeatedly upheld by the judicial branch, it is illegal to solicit classified information that damages our national security.  

                    Fun footnote: Frustrated by the inability to ban the publication of the Pentagon Papers, Nixon then set up his "plumber" squad to illegally dig up dirt to discredit Ellsberg (the leaker). This squad would later get caught breaking into the DNC's Watergate headquarters.  Obama has not stooped nearly so low.

                    Conservatives need to realize that their Silent Moral Majority is neither silent, nor moral, nor a majority.

                    by nominalize on Fri May 24, 2013 at 09:20:13 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I don't think there is any way to cut this (0+ / 0-)

                      Gordian knot.

                      Rosen reported that North Korea planned to respond to renewed sanctions by testing more nuclear weapons. I didn't need a spy in Pyongyang to be able to make that prediction - I think it falls under the purview of the Department of the Obvious. So I think the claim that Rosen's article somehow damaged national security is somewhat  akin to waving the post-9-11 bloody shirt.

                      You write a couple very interesting sentences:

                      The fact is, the crime isn't reporting or publishing the information.  That isn't at issue. The crime was leaking the information, and the reporter helped that crime happen by soliciting it.
                      Well, there's a school of thought that says that "soliciting" information -- classified or otherwise -- from reluctant sources is the job of investigative journalists. Rosen was targeted for engaging in behavior common to many investigative journalists, Neil Sheehan not least among them.

                      Speaking of Nixon's motivations in seeking to quash publication of the PP, hope you've read Robert Parry's recent article on why Nixon so feared the PP - acc. to Parry, Nixon feared that the PP that hadn't been published but that Ellsberg might control contained documentation of his treason vis-a-vis the 1968 Paris peace talks. That evidence existed but Ellsberg didn't have it. Instead, LBJ aide Walt Rostow had it and donated it to the LBJ Library (in a file called "The X Enveleope"). Fascinating stuff, even if not really germane to this thread:

                      Robert Parry on Nixon's fear of the Pentagon Papers

                  •  I've read the ACLU statement... (0+ / 0-)

                    (thanks for the link!)  ...and I disagree, as you might have guessed.  Frankly, the fear that the law could apply to innocent questions is so overblown as to practically ludicrous.  

                    That would, quite literally, make virtually any question by a reporter implicating classified information a potential felony.
                    Umm, no.  Asking a question and getting an answer, especially in an adversarial context like a press briefing, does not mean that you and the answerer "conspire to violate [793(d)]".  Any judge would laugh such a contention out of court.  It's clear from the affidavit that Mr Rosen did much more than just ask questions. That's why the FBI went to a judge, and the judge not only didn't laugh them out of court, but also found probable cause for a search warrant.

                    Now, I'll grant the part about not disclosing the search could probably have been avoided, but it's hardly a chilling step towards tyranny.  The guidelines of notifying the press within 90 days after searches (which wouldn't exist if the searches never happened before) can be strengthened a bit.

                    But then, Mr Rottman then says that we should accept "bad" speech as the price for "good" speech.  And he's right.  But Mr Rosen's revelation wasn't "bad" speech, it was needlessly dangerous speech, and that has never been protected, and shouldn't be.  This isn't the Nazis in Skokie, or the Westboro folks at a soldier's funeral.  This is shouting fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire -- it puts people in danger and has no public benefit.    

                    Conservatives need to realize that their Silent Moral Majority is neither silent, nor moral, nor a majority.

                    by nominalize on Fri May 24, 2013 at 09:45:29 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  I've now read the affidavit. I think the judge (0+ / 0-)

                  and perhaps you yourself have fallen victim to the 'intentional fallacy' (an idea borrowed from my days in graduate school in literary criticism).

                  Basically, the 'intentional fallacy' argues that one cannot necessarily impute intent to any written first-person utterance. The 'I' in any written work is a constructed persona with aims and intentions that may not necessarily coincide with the aims and intentions of the real author behind it. One can never 'know' definitively the intent of any author of any piece of writing.

                  To ground this in the specifics of this affidavit (itself citing portions of a May 22, 2009 email, wherein Rosen employs the nom de plume of 'Alex' and Kim is given the name 'Leo'):

                  Thanks Leo. What I am interested in, as you might expect, is breaking news ahead of my competitors . . . . In short, let's break some news, and expose muddle-headed policy when we see it - or force the administration to go in the right direction, if possible. The only way to do this is to EXPOSE (sic) the policy . . . and the only way to do that authoritatively is with EVIDENCE. (sic)
                  One of the ways investigative journalists operate is to appeal to the source's heroic self-imaging of himself and we can see that the real Rosen is doing this by asking Kim to "EXPOSE . . . with EVIDENCE." You can rightly object that investigative journalists seduce their sources by such patently obvious ploys but that has never been against the criminal laws of this country.

                  To continue along this line of 'intentional fallacy,' one might impute that when the "I" in the email says "Let's break some news" that the real Rosen is conspiring with Kim. But again, one can counter-argue that Rosen has created the persona of a 'crusader' making common cause with Kim when the real Rosen's interest comes in the very first sentence ("breaking news ahead of my competitors").

                  I am having a devil of a time finding a version of this affidavit on line that will load easily over my wireless connection and that allows me to copy and paste, so had to type the foregoing excerpt free-hand. As a result, I may be missing a portion of the affidavit that you consider essential to this case. If so, can you please indicate what portions (or even page numbers) if any I should be reading?

                  For more on how journalists interact with, seduce and otherwise secure cooperation from their sources, I cannot recommend highly enough Janet Malcolm's seminal 1990 book The Journalist and the Murderer (about journalist Joe McGinniss and convicted murderer Jeffrey MacDonald). The book should be required reading for anyone seeking to criminalize the behavior of journalists. The wiki below is a great place to start if you're pressed for time:

                  Janet Malcolm's The Journalist and the Murderer

          •  The FBI does that in any criminal investiga (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Tony Situ

            Surveilance in public areas is not "spying."  Collecting emails pursuant to a duly-issued search warrant is not "spying."  This is called "police work."  Read the friggin' Fourth Amendment.

            I do not feel obligated to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use -- Galileo Galilei

            by ccyd on Fri May 24, 2013 at 10:58:44 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Ah, but signing an affidavit listing a reporter as (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              aliasalias, 3goldens

              a "possible co-conspirator"??? When case law has never made reporting on or publishing classified information a crime?? Why don't you read up on the friggin' Fourth Amendment after you're done Sieg Heiling?

              •  Read the affidavit (0+ / 0-)

                The judge wouldn't have checked off on it unless there was probable cause that the reporter had committed a crime.  I'll take the judge's word for it over yours.

                And you can cram your "Seig Heil"

                I do not feel obligated to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use -- Galileo Galilei

                by ccyd on Fri May 24, 2013 at 12:04:47 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Before I cram my 'Sieg Heil,' I would like you (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  aliasalias, 3goldens

                  to consider that you, by agreeing with this judge's issuance of the warrant, are agreeng that the gathering of news is itself a criminal offense.

                  To quote from the ACLU:

                  What's astonishing here is that never before has the government argued that newsgathering—in this case, asking a source to provide sensitive information—is itself illegal. That would, quite literally, make virtually any question by a reporter implicating classified information a potential felony. The logic behind the FBI's warrant application would extend even to a reporter asking a question at a public press briefing at the CIA, Pentagon, or State Department. If the question is designed to elicit the disclosure of classified information, and prompts that disclosure, I don't see how the reporter couldn't be held responsible under the FBI's rationale.
                  ACLU on the Rosen Affair

                  You want to line up with this judge against the ACLU, be my guest. Just don't come touting your civil liberties credentials and not be expected to be laughed off of the board.

                  •  and that is really tendentious reasoning (0+ / 0-)

                    It's at the level of "gun registration will lead to Nazi death camps".
                     

                    self-appointed intellectual cop

                    by citizen k on Fri May 24, 2013 at 12:57:54 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Sometimes warrants are just valid (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Tony Situ

                    And sometimes the ACLU is wrong.  I do not agree with their characterization in this case.

                    If the ACLU wants to take up Rosen's case, then good for them.  I had a law professor who was a no-exceptions First Amendment disciple.  He would say, "What's so difficult to understand about 'Congress shall make no law?'"  Yet, there are lots of exceptions to the First Amendment.  It is important to have the ACLU out there protecting the edges of the envelope (they do much more than that, but protecting the edges is one of the things they do), but that doesn't make it the law, nor does it make the ACLU the arbiter of the law.  The law is determined by judges and it is what it is, not what the ACLU wishes it were.

                    I take it that you still haven't read the affidavit.  All the DOJ needs is probable cause, which isn't a particularly high standard.  A Federal Judge determined that the strictures of the Fourth Amendment were met and issued the search warrant.  The DOJ gathered its evidence and ultimately decided not to bring charges against Rosen.  Police work is like that -- there are times when the evidence collected under a search warrant is inconsistent with bringing an indictment, and it looks like this case is one of those times.

                    At this point, the warrant is valid and there is no process by which to test that determination.  There is no Art. III case or controversy here because the DOJ's decision not to bring charges renders the matter moot.  If the DOJ changes its mind and does bring charges, then Rosen can challenge the evidence obtained under the warrant.  He'll lose, and appeal, lose again and the the Supreme Court will deny cert.  The Espionage Act is pretty broad and has been upheld many times.

                    And, hey, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong and I'll write a diary that says "CharlesInCharge was right about the Rosen case and I was wrong."  So far, I'm not sharpening my pencil.

                    And by the way, I've represented the ACLU on a couple of occasions in my career on matters involving civil liberties, so I'll tout my credentials however I please.

                    I do not feel obligated to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use -- Galileo Galilei

                    by ccyd on Fri May 24, 2013 at 02:17:26 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  sorry, but a judge thoght different. (0+ / 0-)

                Had the judge agreed with you, he/she would have denied the warrant.  Sorry, but them's the breaks.  Nobody wins 'em all.  Your side lost this time.  You can keep shouting to the sky, shaking your fist, but that won't change the judge's decision to grant the warrant.

          •  OH MY GOD (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Tony Situ

            The State Department monitored Rosen's physical comings and goings from the State Department building like they do for everyone else. How sinister.

            self-appointed intellectual cop

            by citizen k on Fri May 24, 2013 at 04:45:24 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Holder has long ago ceased (6+ / 0-)

    being an asset to this administration.  

    It's the Supreme Court, stupid!

    by Radiowalla on Fri May 24, 2013 at 07:56:06 AM PDT

  •  I'm so done with Holder....I am sick of his name (11+ / 0-)

    popping up every few weeks and surely there is someone out there who could do his job....without the need to be on the constant defense of his actions.

  •  In places like Malaysia, Singapore and (14+ / 0-)

    South Korea the governments use national security laws and in the case of Malaysia the sedition act to control the press.  What the Obama administration is doing is no different just the law they are using is called the espionage act.

    •  so.... (0+ / 0-)

      ...your gripe is more properly directed towards the folks who pass the laws in this country.

      •  Espionage act (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MrJayTee, deep info, 3goldens

        was passed in 1917.  They're all dead.

        What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

        by happymisanthropy on Fri May 24, 2013 at 08:52:59 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Let's exhume Woodrow Wilson and slap his corpse. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          shaharazade, deep info, 3goldens

          God knows he deserves it.

          A slower bleed-out is not a sustainable value.

          by MrJayTee on Fri May 24, 2013 at 09:13:23 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  lol that's a good one. Thanks (4+ / 0-)
          •  tee hee (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MrJayTee, deep info

            ooh you got me.  Now maybe some other snarky jerk can explain why congress can't repeal or amend old laws that they feel are being abused.
            There's also the broader context of so many people here making Holder the scapegoat not only for this, but for the AP issue and others that don't just involve the Espionage Act, but FISA and the Patriot Act, as well as the Obama Administration's overrarching agressive posture towards anyone they view as leaking national security information.  
            But go ahead, blame Holder for all these problems and act as if anything will change with the next AG the president chooses, or the current congress.  I highly doubt anything would change even if the Dems retake the House.  

            I understand the anger at Holder for not prosecuting the bankers and the war criminals, but again, that was part of Obama's philosophy of "moving on" and "what's done is done" bullshit, as well as his conscious decision to populate his adminstration with Wall Street whores--Holder is just one of many.

            •  My flippant remark wasn't directed at you. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              aliasalias, 3goldens

              My apology for not specifying that.

              Of course Congress is responsible for the laws it passes and it's foolish to lay the blame for those laws on the executive.

              It's also true that the executive has, especially since 9/11, great latitude in executing those laws.  I think one reason people are looking so hard at the White House and DoJ on this (and other) issues is due to Congress's abdication of its historic role and the enormous expansion of executive power over the last decade plus.

              The Obama administration has done little to limit that expansion, which I think you allude to.  In fact, quite the opposite.  When power is abused, you look to those using the power abusively.

              That's why the executive bears so much scrutiny here.  

              I personally don't see AG Holder as a deserving scapegoat, he's all of a piece with the administration he works for.  

              If I haven't answered you adequately, please let me know what else I can address.

              A slower bleed-out is not a sustainable value.

              by MrJayTee on Fri May 24, 2013 at 12:29:34 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  As Julian Assange (0+ / 0-)

              said this administration is very good at making new law out of old. They interpret the old law to suit their own wicked agenda. They seem to also pass new legislation that is as erroneously named as the lasts. Affordable Health Care, right. Blame congress they too are guilty but it takes a non-partisan all branches, concerted effort and lot's of by-partisan kabuki to wreck this countries economy and wage 'war' on the rest of the world for 'security'.      

    •  How is the press being controlled? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      deep info

      It sure doesn't sound like it to anyone here.

      Conservatives need to realize that their Silent Moral Majority is neither silent, nor moral, nor a majority.

      by nominalize on Fri May 24, 2013 at 09:30:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well just wait until not only Rosen gets (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        deep info

        prosecuted but so do the people at the NYT who published the Pentagon Papers (no statute of limitations, remember).

        You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

        by Throw The Bums Out on Fri May 24, 2013 at 10:25:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Congressmen have one more press power (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          3goldens

          A member of Congress has the absolute right to publish ANYTHING by reading it into the Congressional Record.  ANYTHING.  Top secret information, troop movements, ANYTHING.  This is an ironclad guarantee even stronger than the First Amendment, specified in the Constitution.

          From now on, with the government explicitly targeting and attacking freedom of the Press, the Congressional Record is going to have to be the primary strategy for revealing government wrongdoing.  We need more like Mike Gravel.

  •  Is Fox News truly legitimate news (0+ / 0-)

    and worthy of constitutional protections, or is it, as many believe, a propaganda distribution channel for corporate America and foreign countries?  

    It's about time that somehow Fox and the rest of 'the press' be held accountable for the extreme slant of their 'news' and the outright lies and untruths, the faux science they report, and the real news that they fail to report.  

  •  So Prez Obama appoints (9+ / 0-)

    Holder to investigate Holder?  Yeah, we'll get the abuse against our press to stop that way.  Holder is incompetent and an awful reflection on our president, this administration, the Democratic Party and to all reasonable Americans.

    •  "the abuse of OUR press"? It's not our press, they (0+ / 0-)

      don't care about us. They serve corporations and the administration they like the most. People who report national security secrets should be in jail, they can cause the death of our own people.

    •  Holder is a *perfect* reflection (4+ / 0-)

      On our president, this administration, the Democratic Party.

      "Holder" is exactly what they have become.

      A slower bleed-out is not a sustainable value.

      by MrJayTee on Fri May 24, 2013 at 08:40:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  agree (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MrJayTee

        The president chose him and has kept him on into his second term, and I'm still not seeing or hearing anything to indicate that the president no longer supports Holder.
        In fact, I've not seen much to indicate that Holder hasn't done exactly what the president would have done regarding most of these issues--from going easy on Wall Street and the Bush administration war criminals, to the agressive approach to leaks, to you name it.  

        If you don't like what the administration is doing here, change the damn laws.  But then the folks who are blaming Holder for everything would actually have to recognize that there are many others who are responsible.  

        •  By all means, change bad laws. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          3goldens

          But the executive, especially in the years since 9/11, has enormous latitude in applying the law.  Congress has all but abandoned it's traditional oversight role.

          A slower bleed-out is not a sustainable value.

          by MrJayTee on Fri May 24, 2013 at 01:58:52 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Is is just possible that Holder/Obama (0+ / 0-)

    are simply forcing the issue?  Is it possible, that due to the excesses in the Bush administration regarding DOJ, etc, that the best way to get Republicans on board for civil liberties protection is to demonstrate how abuse can occur?  

  •  I think that there are two separate but related (11+ / 0-)

    issues in this overall matter of the administration's going after whistleblowers, leakers and the media under the guise of protecting national security.

    One, that it's doing it not just at all, but to the extent and with the ferocity that it is, which we haven't seen since Nixon and J Edgar Hoover, and why.

    And two, whether and to what extent it's doing this in a constitutional manner, irregardless of whatever legal cover the Patriot Act and FISA and various legal findings give it, which may or may not be constitutionally valid.

    I have issues with both aspects of this matter. So should we all. If there are legitimate national security concerns then obviously the administration can and should pursue them, but only in a constitutional manner. But if it's doing this to intimidate the media and whistleblowers, and/or in an unconstitutional way, then shame on it--and shame on us for defending it, and not criticizing it.

    Obama is better than that. Or so I wanted to believe.

    "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

    by kovie on Fri May 24, 2013 at 07:59:15 AM PDT

    •  Why ask questions? (0+ / 0-)

      When we can just rant and rave and gnash our teeth instead?  (I wish I was only kidding)

      Conservatives need to realize that their Silent Moral Majority is neither silent, nor moral, nor a majority.

      by nominalize on Fri May 24, 2013 at 09:32:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Ranting, raving and venting are normal (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        nominalize, Mr Robert, deep info, 3goldens

        under such circumstances, and I think OK so long as eventually followed by a more sober and rational evaluation. YMMV.

        "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

        by kovie on Fri May 24, 2013 at 10:17:33 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  yes (0+ / 0-)

          although this thread seems to be mostly occupied with the ranting and raving phase, any suggestion that Holder isn't solely responsible for all this is not particularly welcome.
          Far be it from me to suggest that Congress change the laws that allow all this.  Another suggestion would be that we get more federal judges appointed who aren't rubber stamps for an overly aggressive security state.

  •  Once again Obama decries HIS OWN policies (21+ / 0-)

    in his woeful, world-weary, sad eyed way. He does this over and over. Because half the community buys it each time.
    Does anyone really think Eric Holder 'went rogue' like on a FOX cop show and Obama doesn't know what the man is doing? Really?

  •  well, "do as I say, not as I do" is a longheld (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    happymisanthropy

    American political tradition.

    (sigh)

  •  Wait a sec (13+ / 0-)
    the fact is that the search warrant accused him of criminal acts without giving him chance to respond to it before it was executed.
    How often to cops give advanced notice of a search warrant?

    We all stand submissively before the global ATM machine network like trained chickens pecking the correct colored buttons to release our grains of corn. Joe Bageant

    by Zwoof on Fri May 24, 2013 at 08:04:52 AM PDT

    •  Yeah I'm Not Defending The Warrant (9+ / 0-)

      ...because I don't know anything about it.

      But nobody gets to defend themselves before warrants are executed.  Just imagine if the police called everyone a week in advance and said: "Hey just FYI we're going to be searching your property next week.  We're just telling you so you have a chance to defend yourself.  If there's evidence in your house that you killed all those people, please don't hide it or anything OK?"

      Too Folk For You. - Schmidting in the Punch Bowl - verb - Committing an unexpected and underhanded political act intended to "spoil the party."

      by TooFolkGR on Fri May 24, 2013 at 08:21:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's the criminalization of journalism. (7+ / 0-)

      From emptywheel:

      In other words, during a period from May 2010 through January 2011, Eric Holder’s DOJ was developing this theory under which journalists were criminals, though it’s just now that we’re all noticing this May 2010 affidavit that lays the groundwork for that theory.

      Maybe that development was predictable, given that during precisely that time period, the lawyer who fucked up the Ted Stevens prosecution, William Welch, was in charge of prosecuting leaks (though it’s not clear he had a role in Kim’s prosecution before he left in 2011).

      But it’s worth noting the strategy — and the purpose it serves — because it is almost certainly still in effect. FBI Special Agent Reginald Reyes accused Rosen of being a criminal so he could get around the Privacy Protection Act protections for media work product (See pages 4 and following), which specifically exempts “fruits of a crime” or “property … used [] as a means of committing a criminal offense.” Then he further used it to argue against giving notice to Fox or Rosen.

      •  What was the probable cause? n/t (0+ / 0-)

        We all stand submissively before the global ATM machine network like trained chickens pecking the correct colored buttons to release our grains of corn. Joe Bageant

        by Zwoof on Fri May 24, 2013 at 08:40:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm not following your question. (0+ / 0-)
          •  To get a warrant, law enforcement has (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            nominalize, wadingo

            to show a judge probable cause that a crime was committed as I understand it.

            We all stand submissively before the global ATM machine network like trained chickens pecking the correct colored buttons to release our grains of corn. Joe Bageant

            by Zwoof on Fri May 24, 2013 at 09:09:21 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  As emptywheel notes, (6+ / 0-)

              the DOJ is invoking an exception to the media protections in the Privacy Protection Act:

              But it’s worth noting the strategy — and the purpose it serves — because it is almost certainly still in effect. FBI Special Agent Reginald Reyes accused Rosen of being a criminal so he could get around the Privacy Protection Act protections for media work product (See pages 4 and following), which specifically exempts “fruits of a crime” or “property … used [] as a means of committing a criminal offense.” Then he further used it to argue against giving notice to Fox or Rosen.

                  Because of the Reporter’s own potential criminal liability in this matter, we believe that requesting the voluntary production of the materials from Reporter would be futile and would pose a substantial threat to the integrity of the investigation and of the evidence we seek to obtain by the warrant. (29)

              While the AP’s phone records weren’t taken via a warrant, it would be unsurprising if the government is still using this formula — journalists = criminals and therefore cannot have notice — to collect evidence. Indeed, that may be one reason why we haven’t seen the subpoena to the AP.

              Of course, this is not just about journalists. In this schema, providing information about what our government is doing in our name to citizens constitutes a crime.

              This criminalization of journalism is a fundamentally anti-democratic stance.

              http://www.emptywheel.net/...

              So the issue is not whether or not they got a warrant, but why, not just in the case of Rosen but in other cases as well, the DOJ is invoking the same formula of journalists as criminals to eviscerate the media protections.

        •  Read upthread (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          nominalize, jdsnebraska, Tony Situ

          Apparently Rosen stated his intent as being to influence politics, rather than to report.

          I.e., he was not acting as a journalist, but a political operative.

          Apparently a Bush appointed judge agreed and granted the warrant.

          We should all read the affidavit before coming to any conclusions.

          Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. Barack Obama

          by delphine on Fri May 24, 2013 at 09:32:02 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  by the letter of the law, (2+ / 0-)

        what they're doing is highly illegal.  The Espionage Act specifies this, and so does common sense--- if you get someone to steal jewelry and give it to you, you're committing a crime.  The same goes for classified information.  If you don't believe me, you're welcome to try yourself.

        The Supreme Court has written out exceptions for journalists when the illegally-leaked information is the public interest.  But if the information is not in the public interest, then what? Does it make a difference that the publication of this information taught the public little it needed to know? Does it matter that the journalist made it clear in these e-mails that his goal was merely to scoop his competition?

        Also, the SCOTUS specifically does not make exceptions when the illegally-leaked information is dangerous to national security.  Do we just say "aw, whatever, who cares if our spy network in North Korea is compromised by the revelation that we're getting classified information from them"? Or "Who cares if it's harder to get spies on the ground because they can't trust us to keep their identities secret, even though after 9/11 one of the weakest points in our intelligence was the lack of spies on the ground?"  

        These buzzword clichés going around, "criminalizing journalism" or "chilling effect", would be distressing if that's what the Obama administration were actually doing.  But I've yet to see any evidence that they are.  They're just chipping away at immunity privileges the press are, quite frankly, abusing, if this is all they manage to do with it.  

        Conservatives need to realize that their Silent Moral Majority is neither silent, nor moral, nor a majority.

        by nominalize on Fri May 24, 2013 at 09:41:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  A legal search warrant is a legal search warrant (11+ / 0-)

    not an accusation. It is a way to continue the investigation.
    At least that is what all the cop shows say. I don't see
    the harm. Nobody is abridging anybody's first amendment
    right to make noise as proven by FOX.

    •  It's an act of intimidation (6+ / 0-)

      That's how police states rule.  They don't need to lock everyone up because intimidation works on most people.  The press is already mostly cowed by corporate power and the security state is taking care of the rest.

      •  Nonsense. In a police state there are no search (3+ / 0-)

        warrants. This is absolute nonsense and hyperbole.

        •  Police states can be the most bureaucratic (8+ / 0-)

          of all.  Issuing paper documents has nothing to do with protecting civil rights once the system itself has become corrupted.  Holder isn't a local rogue cop who is going to be reined in by a wise and impartial judge.  

          •  Stalin's Russia had search warrants. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            greenbell, 3goldens

            Of course, they weren't issued by impartial judges, they were issued by autocratic bureacurats.  Sound familiar?  "National Security Letters"?

            I think a lot of people don't know very much about how police states actually operate.  (I'm agreeing with greenbell.)

        •  Whereas here, there are search warrants (7+ / 0-)

          executed in secret, with the target given no chance to have his day in court.

          "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 Fri May 24, 2013 at 08:24:18 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Reporters who publish leaks have no reasonable (0+ / 0-)

            expectation of privacy, they know that what they are
            doing is going to be investigated and they are still
            liable to end up in court. This is baloney.

          •  warrants have always neen that way. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            wadingo, jdsnebraska

            Are you really saying that law enforcement must never conduct investigation without first notifying the target?  Is that really what progressives maintain now?

            •  It's not a warrant. If it's a warrant (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              deep info, aliasalias, 3goldens

              then what was the probable crime, being  a journalist? having sources within the federal government?

              It is customary, according to DOJ's own regs, to inform the press when its phone records are being targeted by a subpoena.

              So yes, in response to enemy of the people, reporters who publish leaks have every reasonable expectation of privacy.

              And that's ignoring the insane overreach of the Administration here, who went after something like 100 reporters' call logs for two months, because the AP broke a story the night before the WH wanted to break it themselves, after the entire plot was over.

              Marcy Wheeler lays out the timeline, and the absurdity of DOJ's claims, here

              Although this is interesting speculation.

              "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 Fri May 24, 2013 at 12:20:59 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  You don't get advance warning (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            wadingo, edwardssl, jdsnebraska, Tony Situ

            of a search warrant: "Um, hello sir, we're going to your house next tuesday to look for items that could implicate you in this crime we suspect you of. Do be sure not to remove any of these items from the house:

            LIST OF ITEMS THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR

            Thank you have a nice day.
            Signed,

            ...."

            Conservatives need to realize that their Silent Moral Majority is neither silent, nor moral, nor a majority.

            by nominalize on Fri May 24, 2013 at 09:44:13 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  So journalism is a crime now? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              deep info, 3goldens

              Normally, the relationship between the Department of Justice and the Press is not supposed to be the same as that of a cop with a warrant and a suspected criminal.

              What crime were the journalists suspected of committing?

              "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 Fri May 24, 2013 at 12:22:00 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Well, if you read the affidavit (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Tony Situ

                "I believe there is probable cause to conclude that the contents of the wire and electronic communications pertaining to [Mr Rosen's e-mail account] are evidence, fruits and instrumentalities of criminal violations of 18.U.S.C. Sec 793 (Unauthorized Disclosure of National Defense Information), and that there is probable cause that the Reporter has committed or is committing a violation of section 793(d), as an aider and abettor and/or co-conspirator, to which the materials relate.

                What is section 793(d), you ask? Well, here's the copy-and-paste from findlaw:

                (d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control
                over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book,signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint,plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it,
                So far, this applies especially to the leaker... but we're not done:
                or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled
                The affidavit then notes section (g) of the same act:
                (g) If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.
                The offense for violating section (d) is up to ten years' imprisonment.  

                You can read the whole affidavit here; it's quite the lurid tale:

                the affidavit

                Now, you might say: But this is a journalist!  Well, read on: The Privacy Protection Act specifically protects journalists, unless "there is probable cause to believe that the person possessing such materials has committed or is committing the criminal offense to which the materials relate:"

                 Then, the affidavit makes its case for probable cause... and a judge found there to be probable cause.  Spreading secrets is a crime.  We let it pass sometimes if it serves a public interest, but it doesn't always (in this case, the reporter pointed out, the goal was to scoop his competition, and we didn't learn much of interest. Certainly not enough to warrant tipping off the North Koreans, who not only execute spies but ship their families off to labor camps.  I'm sure they'll appreciate Mr Rosen's scoop.)

                Seriously. Read the affidavit.

                Conservatives need to realize that their Silent Moral Majority is neither silent, nor moral, nor a majority.

                by nominalize on Fri May 24, 2013 at 01:39:07 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  OK, so in other words (0+ / 0-)

                  now the journalist, because of receiving classified information, is guilty of conspiring with the leaker and therefore faces criminal penalties just like the leaker does.

                  If you support that law, you can say goodbye to journalism.

                  "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 Sat May 25, 2013 at 05:21:44 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  A police state gets reporters (5+ / 0-)

          To censor themselves.  That's what the chilling effect of these investigations is for.

          A slower bleed-out is not a sustainable value.

          by MrJayTee on Fri May 24, 2013 at 09:00:01 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  So does a non-police state (0+ / 0-)

            Or have you never observed our media during war operations

            Conservatives need to realize that their Silent Moral Majority is neither silent, nor moral, nor a majority.

            by nominalize on Fri May 24, 2013 at 09:45:28 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Enough of these horseshit excuses. (5+ / 0-)

              It's a police state tactic and it's not acceptable in a democracy.  Your rationalizations are moral sewage.

              A slower bleed-out is not a sustainable value.

              by MrJayTee on Fri May 24, 2013 at 10:23:23 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  so... (0+ / 0-)

                when the press self-censored itself not to publish FDR's wheelchair-bound situation during the war, that was the same as the Stasi having everyone spy on their neighbors and report to their komissar.  Now you're just wasting everybody's time.

                Conservatives need to realize that their Silent Moral Majority is neither silent, nor moral, nor a majority.

                by nominalize on Fri May 24, 2013 at 10:42:19 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Oh, Christ. (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  deep info, aliasalias, 3goldens

                  Yes, the press corps refraining from talking about FDR's wheelchair

                  equals the Stasi

                  equals the US National Security Apparatus chilling reporters by investigating one as a co-conspirator in a federal national security case and freezing their sources by seizing their phone records.

                  You powers of reasoning have overwhelmed me.

                  Meanwhile, here are some quotes from MSM journalists who know what they're facing.

                  Now run on back to your moral vacuum.

                  A slower bleed-out is not a sustainable value.

                  by MrJayTee on Fri May 24, 2013 at 11:00:09 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You're the one talking about "police state" (0+ / 0-)

                    and you complain when I follow your point to its logical conclusion. Bravo.

                    East Germany was a police state.  The United States is not, was not, and won't be.  I'm glad you recognize the difference, but your rhetoric should reflect that.

                    Now, I've read what the journalists think will happen if we put the slightest regulation on dangerous leaks.  They've been saying the same thing for ten years.  I've read what the NRA thinks will happen if we put the slightest regulations on dangerous guns. They've been saying the same thing for twenty years. Funny how they say exactly the same things, and they're both just as ludicrously wrong as each other.  

                    Conservatives need to realize that their Silent Moral Majority is neither silent, nor moral, nor a majority.

                    by nominalize on Fri May 24, 2013 at 01:44:13 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

    •  The issue isn't the warrant per se. (5+ / 0-)

      It's the legal theory under which the warrant was sought and obtained — a theory that says that a reporter who solicits classified information is a conspirator. This theory would make meaningful investigative journalism impossible to do legally.

      Code Monkey like freedom / Code Monkey like peace and justice too
      Code Monkey very nerdy man / With big warm fuzzy bleeding heart
      Code Monkey like you!

      Formerly known as Jyrinx.

      by Code Monkey on Fri May 24, 2013 at 08:50:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  By the letter of the Espionage Act, (2+ / 0-)

        it is illegal to solicit classified information. It's also illegal, once you've got classified information you're not supposed to have, to keep it instead of turning it over immediately.

        The issue is that the press have to some extent (not 100%) been granted the privilege of immunity from prosecution under this act.  You and I don't get that privilege.  And it's why foreign spy handlers are always here on diplomatic passports, which grant them diplomatic immunity from prosecution for doing precisely this.    

        But they are co-conspirators, in any sense of the term, to an illegal act.  

        Conservatives need to realize that their Silent Moral Majority is neither silent, nor moral, nor a majority.

        by nominalize on Fri May 24, 2013 at 09:47:57 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The affidavit doesn't allege (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          aliasalias

          that Rosen wasn't being a journalist. It merely describes the process of obtaining the information and then publishing it. Rosen's status as “privileged,” or his lack thereof, is never considered at all.

          Code Monkey like freedom / Code Monkey like peace and justice too
          Code Monkey very nerdy man / With big warm fuzzy bleeding heart
          Code Monkey like you!

          Formerly known as Jyrinx.

          by Code Monkey on Fri May 24, 2013 at 10:02:21 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Exactly. As the law prescribes. (0+ / 0-)

            Prosecutors have discretion in determining whether to pursue someone for violations of a law, and generally prosecutors will lay off journalists, if for no other reason than shitstorms like this, where it gets bad PR from other journalists.

            This time, the prosecutor didn't, and that's what the rest of the journalism world is up in arms about.    

            Conservatives need to realize that their Silent Moral Majority is neither silent, nor moral, nor a majority.

            by nominalize on Fri May 24, 2013 at 10:22:06 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  So the BUSH Justice Department (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              greenbell, deep info

              didn't go after the domestic spying reporters even though they could have under the law? Are you seriously telling me that Ashcroft had too much respect for journalism??

              I simply cannot believe that the entire basis of the freedom of the press to report on secret government doings is prosecutorial discretion on the part of the government. If that were true, we'd never learn anything the government doesn't want us to.

              Code Monkey like freedom / Code Monkey like peace and justice too
              Code Monkey very nerdy man / With big warm fuzzy bleeding heart
              Code Monkey like you!

              Formerly known as Jyrinx.

              by Code Monkey on Fri May 24, 2013 at 10:26:30 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Let's not run away with implications, here (0+ / 0-)
                Are you seriously telling me that Ashcroft had too much respect for journalism??
                I'm seriously telling you that we don't know if the Bush administration checked the records of journalists because they didn't need a public warrant to do so.  The rest is speculation.  I will note that the administration itself did quite a bit of leaking, and I'm sure they didn't investigate those leaks too carefully.
                I simply cannot believe that the entire basis of the freedom of the press to report on secret government doings is prosecutorial discretion on the part of the government.
                It's not the entire basis!  There are also judicial decisions, which rests on the discretion of judges, who are... also part of the government.  

                Conservatives need to realize that their Silent Moral Majority is neither silent, nor moral, nor a majority.

                by nominalize on Fri May 24, 2013 at 10:30:59 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  But judges are a separate branch. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  deep info

                  Your claim, that prosecutorial discretion is the reason people don't always go to jail for publishing classified information, implies that the executive is entirely self-policing. Much as Cheney was a fan of the idea and Obama doesn't seem to hate it either, it's not a fact.

                  Code Monkey like freedom / Code Monkey like peace and justice too
                  Code Monkey very nerdy man / With big warm fuzzy bleeding heart
                  Code Monkey like you!

                  Formerly known as Jyrinx.

                  by Code Monkey on Fri May 24, 2013 at 10:33:39 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Prosecutorial discretion is the reason (0+ / 0-)

                    a lot of people don't go to jail despite violating laws.  Just look at all the "accidental gun deaths" that are caused by leaving loaded guns around in violation of the law.  Then the prosecutor says "they've suffered enough" and boom!  off the hook.

                    But to get to the meat, we have judges on the one hand, the executive on the other, and of course the legislature who passed the Espionage Act in the first place and could write in press protections if it wanted to.  Is that not checks and balances?  

                    Conservatives need to realize that their Silent Moral Majority is neither silent, nor moral, nor a majority.

                    by nominalize on Fri May 24, 2013 at 10:39:10 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  No. It's not. (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      greenbell, deep info, aliasalias

                      All those checks and balances are meaningless without representative government, which we can't have without a free press. The three branches could all agree tomorrow that socialism is illegal and that wouldn't make it right.

                      Code Monkey like freedom / Code Monkey like peace and justice too
                      Code Monkey very nerdy man / With big warm fuzzy bleeding heart
                      Code Monkey like you!

                      Formerly known as Jyrinx.

                      by Code Monkey on Fri May 24, 2013 at 11:28:33 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

        •  The Espionage Act of 1917 is unconstitutional (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          aliasalias

          It has always been unconstitutional.  Large portions of it have already been invalidated and struck down.  Obama is abusing some of the remaining bits.  These haven't been invalidated and struck down because since Woodrow Wilson, very few Presidents have ever dared to use them.

  •  I would be distressed if we indeed had a (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Blicero

    free press and not a corporate controlled one. Seems the so called free press doesn't have a problem with carrying corporation bucket, but the government investigating their actions are a no no.

    Now all of a sudden they are the peoples press? These are the people who collaborated with the Bush administration to report the lies, asked no questions and helped lead us into a war based on lies. They lost their credibility and became just another propaganda arm of the administration they agree with. Isn't it a fact fox is the propaganda arm and conspire with the republican party? I have no problem investigating them to determine whether they are co- conspirators. Can't have it both ways.

  •  Justice Department Investigating Journalists (9+ / 0-)

    Is always going to look bad. Full stop.

    At minimum, this is horrible public relations for the Obama administration.

    Democrats aren't going to like this any more than Republicans.

    At most, this shows a blatant disregard for traditions of the free press in this country and a sniveling, cowardly sort of power play that we have a right not to expect from the Executive.

    The truth is probably somewhere in between:

    Real necessity to investigate improper behavior within government, poor judgment on the part of Holder and Justice Department lawyers and some level power insecurity going to the top of the White House itself.

    My immediate response, before all the facts are out is:

    Ew.

    "I'll believe that corporations are people when I see Rick Perry execute one."

    by bink on Fri May 24, 2013 at 08:11:27 AM PDT

  •  I'm not entirely sure that (0+ / 0-)

    Anyone whose job title starts with "Fox News.." Can be legitimately described as a journalist..

    It would be so much easier to get fired up about this if the media had ever bothered to get fired up about the govern,ent doing the same to us citizens.

  •  In light of the National Security aspects of this (5+ / 0-)

    and what the entire point of a search warrant IS, I don't follow your implied conclusion.

    Should Rosen have been warned that he was a person of interest prior to the search warrant?

    Remember, they exhausted every other avenue first.

    And how does "shield law" protect someone from trafficking in classified information?

    I don't buy the argument.

    Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
    I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
    —Spike Milligan

    by polecat on Fri May 24, 2013 at 08:15:27 AM PDT

  •  Do you think they would have been as aggresssive (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Victor Ward

    with a news gathering organization like MSNBC?   It certainly would have looked less targeted.   Bad facts make bad law, or bad scandals.  

    The patellar reflex is a deep tendon reflex which allows one to keep one's balance with little effort or conscious thought.

    by SpamNunn on Fri May 24, 2013 at 08:15:54 AM PDT

  •  "Journalists" are not snowflakes (2+ / 0-)

    They don't have special legal protection, and I don't think they should have it.

    If they're uncovering wrongdoing, then fine cover that under whistle blowing. If they're just reporting on things that get them a "story" then I see no reason to shield them from prosecution if the law has been broken.

    it's that the government put its desire to stop leaks ahead of the Constitutional right to freedom of the press
    I don't agree with this, "the press" has every write to publish what they want. They don't have a right to break the law.

    We were not ahead of our time, we led the way to our time.

    by i understand on Fri May 24, 2013 at 08:16:36 AM PDT

    •  And as the government classifies more and more (12+ / 0-)

      information in the interests of the government doing what it damn well pleases without the public having any ability to know anything about it most anything we need the 1st amendment for becomes illegal to report.

      The founders didn't pass the 1st amendment to preserve the right to report the weather.

    •  I agree with this, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      enemy of the people

      as long as there is in fact evidence that the journalist may have participated in breaking the law.  There cannot be blanket protection for criminal activity for no other reason that they're members of the press.

      If it turns out that the DOJ sought these records from the press only in connection with investigation (and not a suspect in the investigation), then I do have a problem with that.

      Of course, we don't know what evidence the DOJ presented to the judge who approved the search warrant, so we have  no way to decide ourselves if the warrant was truly justified or not.

      This from the diary confuses me

      It doesn't matter that Rosen hasn't been charged with a crime—the fact is that the search warrant accused him of criminal acts without giving him chance to respond to it before it was executed.
      As a matter of procedure (not necessarily with this case) is it normal for law enforcement to tell a suspect that they're going to be hit with a search warrant?  Wouldn't that tip off a suspect that they'd better get rid of the "evidence"?  This statement doesn't make sense to me.
      •  We don't know the evidence, but we know (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Mr Robert

        what they argued to the judge, namely that Rosen was potentially an unindicted co-conspirator. IOW, that he may have broken the law by soliciting classified info.

        Code Monkey like freedom / Code Monkey like peace and justice too
        Code Monkey very nerdy man / With big warm fuzzy bleeding heart
        Code Monkey like you!

        Formerly known as Jyrinx.

        by Code Monkey on Fri May 24, 2013 at 08:53:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  By soliciting (0+ / 0-)

          classified information with the express (and expressed) intent to "force the government's hand".

          Soliciting classified information is journalism.  

          Soliciting classified information in order to harm the President is not.

          Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. Barack Obama

          by delphine on Fri May 24, 2013 at 09:34:30 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  There's no clause in the First Amendment (5+ / 0-)

            regarding purity of intent. Do you really want courts to decide whether a reporter is doing something for the Right Reasons?

            Some journalists have agendas. They still get the same protections. As do shitty hack journalists not worth the ink it takes to print their byline.

            Code Monkey like freedom / Code Monkey like peace and justice too
            Code Monkey very nerdy man / With big warm fuzzy bleeding heart
            Code Monkey like you!

            Formerly known as Jyrinx.

            by Code Monkey on Fri May 24, 2013 at 09:39:16 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  "Journalists" don't have protections (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              edwardssl, Tony Situ

              Publishing has protections. My right to publish is exactly the same as any "Journalist's" right to publish.

              I don't have a right to trespass to gather information, nor does a "Journalist".

              We were not ahead of our time, we led the way to our time.

              by i understand on Fri May 24, 2013 at 10:54:52 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  "They don't have special legal protection" (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      deep info, aliasalias

      What about this one?

      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

      Doesn’t the “press” mean journalists?  Isn’t this “special legal protection?"

      •  Do you think a "journalist" has the right to break (0+ / 0-)

        into your house, go through your belongings, and report on what he finds?  Do you think "journalists" have a "special legal protection" that others don't such that "journalists" would be allowed to do that?  No, of course you don't think that.  So you know that "freedom of the press" doesn't mean "anything goes, as long as you put on a 'journalist' hat".

        •  That is different (0+ / 0-)

          A journalist cannot break into your house, the first amendment does not say that, it says that they can publish whatever they want.  They have "special legal protection" to publish information whether it is classified or not.

          Call your representative and senators and the white house (lack of capitalization intended) to STOP this crazy warmongering with Iran, please.

          by Indiana Bob on Sat May 25, 2013 at 12:31:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It is not a blanket right to publish (0+ / 0-)

            But I agree with you that the first amendment protects everyone's right to publish, it does not provide for anyone to break laws to gather information.

            We were not ahead of our time, we led the way to our time.

            by i understand on Sat May 25, 2013 at 01:59:33 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  There is an adage.. (0+ / 0-)

        If you want to be protected under "freedom of the press" the first thing you have to do is own a press.

        The first amendment is about freedom to publish, not freedom to collect information.

        We were not ahead of our time, we led the way to our time.

        by i understand on Fri May 24, 2013 at 01:20:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  no, you are wrong (0+ / 0-)

          The person who provides the press with information is subject to whatever laws there are against that, but a journalist can solicit and publish whatever they want.  It happens all the time.  That is what is so dangerous about the DOJ's action.

          The First Amendment is clear on that.

          Call your representative and senators and the white house (lack of capitalization intended) to STOP this crazy warmongering with Iran, please.

          by Indiana Bob on Sat May 25, 2013 at 12:36:30 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I am not wrong. (0+ / 0-)

            The Supreme Court has been very consistent that journalists are not a protected group.

            We were not ahead of our time, we led the way to our time.

            by i understand on Sat May 25, 2013 at 01:51:05 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  cite one case (0+ / 0-)

              where they have ruled that.

              I can cite a couple where they ruled the opposite:

              New York Times Co. v. United States

              Justices Hugo Black and William Douglas, members of the majority, held that the 1st Amendment is absolute. Justice Black called it “unfortunate” in his view “that some of my Brethren [fellow justices] are apparently willing to hold that the publication of news may sometimes be enjoined. Such a holding,” he wrote, “would make a shambles of the First Amendment.”
              Read more: New York Times Co. v. United States (1971) http://www.infoplease.com/...

              Near v Minnesota, here is Justice Hughes:

              the fact that liberty of press may be abused does not make any less necessary the immunity of the press from prior restraint...a more serious evil would result if officials could determine which stories can be published...

              Call your representative and senators and the white house (lack of capitalization intended) to STOP this crazy warmongering with Iran, please.

              by Indiana Bob on Sat May 25, 2013 at 08:12:53 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You keep talking about a different issue (0+ / 0-)

                I'm not commenting at all on prior restraint, nor about publishing. I'm talking about breaking the law.

                We were not ahead of our time, we led the way to our time.

                by i understand on Sat May 25, 2013 at 09:13:29 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Ok, then how did Risen break the law (0+ / 0-)

                  The DOJ has asserted that Risen, who is a real dick by the way, broke the law and was  co-conspirator.

                  How is this true?

                  That is what I object to.  It is fine to go after the leaker (although we allow the government to over-classify out the ass).  What I am saying is you can't spy on a reporters communications because someone else leaked to him/her wihout any due process.

                  You can, as in the case you cited below, compel a journalist to disclose his/her source.  This, as the court wrote, is on a case by case basis and the journalist is only required to appear before a grand jury if he/she has information that could not be obtained in other ways.  The test in legaleze is

                  convincingly show a substantial relation between the information sought and a subject of overriding and compelling state interest.
                  So if the DOJ would have subpoenaed Risen to testify who his source was then the court would have had to evaluate that test.   They didn't do that, they seized his phone/email records of his source in this AND ALL OTHERS.  That is what I object to.

                  I appreciate this debate.  I don't agree but you have disagreed with me without being disagreeable.

                  Call your representative and senators and the white house (lack of capitalization intended) to STOP this crazy warmongering with Iran, please.

                  by Indiana Bob on Sun May 26, 2013 at 05:14:52 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  In terms of a case... (0+ / 0-)

                Branzburg v. Hayes

                liberty of the press is the right of the lonely pamphleteer who uses carbon paper or a mimeograph just as much as of the large metropolitan publisher who utilizes the latest photocomposition methods
                Journalists are not protected, publishing is protected.

                Branzburg v. Hayes

                We were not ahead of our time, we led the way to our time.

                by i understand on Sat May 25, 2013 at 09:30:58 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Dude, that is just bizaar (0+ / 0-)

                  Unless I am misunderstanding you.  Forgive me if I am.

                  That would be like making a law that says that "ditch diggers are not protected, but digging a ditch is protected".

                  And lets say you are correct in your above point.  If Journalists are not protected then how does their "protected" writing get published?

                  Call your representative and senators and the white house (lack of capitalization intended) to STOP this crazy warmongering with Iran, please.

                  by Indiana Bob on Sun May 26, 2013 at 05:02:52 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  not at all (0+ / 0-)

                    It's like saying standing at the corner of a park and giving a speech is protected, but breaking into a board room and giving the same speech is trespassing.

                    The speech is protected, but the trespassing is illegal.

                    We were not ahead of our time, we led the way to our time.

                    by i understand on Sun May 26, 2013 at 09:01:03 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

    •  publishing classified information (0+ / 0-)

      is NOT AGAINST THE LAW.  Going after those who leak is ok, but not those who receive the leaks.

      In Near v Minnesota it was ruled that even if the press behaves irresponsibly about the information they publish, they are still protected by the first amendment.

      The DOJ is trying to make it against the law, and they must be stopped from doing so.

      Call your representative and senators and the white house (lack of capitalization intended) to STOP this crazy warmongering with Iran, please.

      by Indiana Bob on Sat May 25, 2013 at 12:15:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Do you think Judith Miller should have been (0+ / 0-)

    investigated. People get so upset about Holder investigating these people , but complain about what the MSM does and who they really represent. But still call for the resignation of Holder for investigating them. Hypocrites. We don't have a free press, they don't serve us the people. No Holder shouldn't go anywhere. Whether you know it or not, some of the media has no interest in serving the people and most of the MSM is no longer a free press, they are bought and paid for. Which makes them no more or less than any other criminals. They put themselves in that position.

    •  Miller wasn't investigated. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      deep info, aliasalias

      Only one of her sources was exposed.  Compare that to AP, where every single person talking to their news department now have crosshairs on their backs.

      What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

      by happymisanthropy on Fri May 24, 2013 at 09:09:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Holder is not the problem. His boss is. (8+ / 0-)

    Holder doesn't make policy--he carries out policy made by somebody else. Somebody above him.  Somebody he answers to.

  •  Let's not be too sure about that warrant. Yet. (5+ / 0-)

    Even if James Rosen has not been charged with a crime (and caution, there may be a sealed indictment), absolutely nothing prevents obtaining a search warrant for his e-mails and correspondence.

    I happen to believe - and I expect to be in minority here on this point - that it was gutsy for AG Holder to sign or "sign off on" that warrant. He was standing up for (1) the importance of the warrant, and (2) not ducking the certain firestorm associated with a unusually but not unprecedented search of a reporter.

    The point of a warrant is that the object of it need not - often, should not - have "a chance to defend itself." (I believe the law is that warrants are not required to be disclosed where, for example, the issuing judge accepts that disclosure will lead to destruction of evidence.)

    What commenters and the President are suggesting is that the press is different. In an open democracy, we should be heavily invested in full disclosure, whistle blowing and diligent investigative reporting. (Note: it is immaterial but nevertheless ironic that Fox News is not known for these traits.)

    So: Are there instances when members of the media can be subject - under the right circumstances, which might/should/must be few and far between - to normal criminal law processes?
    If the answer is No Never, it will make new law.

    If the answer is Yes, But, there is more to know before we pillory the Attorney General.

    [note: This is my understanding of long-standing criminal law, but I am not delivering legal advice here. The issues, I'm arguing, are policy issues that deserve something better than knee-jerk responses.]

    2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

    by TRPChicago on Fri May 24, 2013 at 08:20:28 AM PDT

    •  The big problem isn't the warrant itself, (5+ / 0-)

      or the mere fact that they got a warrant to search Rosen's communications. The problem is that, to get the warrant, the government argued that it was okay to be going through Rosen's stuff because he may have been a co-conspirator. That's a dangerous argument that Holder put his name to.

      Code Monkey like freedom / Code Monkey like peace and justice too
      Code Monkey very nerdy man / With big warm fuzzy bleeding heart
      Code Monkey like you!

      Formerly known as Jyrinx.

      by Code Monkey on Fri May 24, 2013 at 08:57:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wadingo, Tony Situ

        they argued that it's okay to be going through his stuff because they had EVIDENCE that he was a co-conspirator in that he wanted to report something to effect a particular political aim.

        Warrants necessarily come before the person is proven guilty, that's the point.

        Apparently the affidavit contained enough evidence of possible guilt that a Bush appointed judge granted the warrant.

        I've said upstream - we should all read the affidavit before casting judgment.

        Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. Barack Obama

        by delphine on Fri May 24, 2013 at 09:37:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I just read the affidavit. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Mr Robert, aliasalias

          NO-WHERE does it argue that the reporter's political aims relate to the classification of his involvement as a crime.

          In particular, paragraph 39 on page 26 is a point-by-point summary of the facts leading to the conclusion that Rosen may have committed a crime. His intent is never mentioned.

          You may think that being a Fox News hack disqualifies Rosen from First amendment protections, but the Justice Department apparently does not. Hell, apparently the fact that Rosen “employ[ed] flattery and play[ed] to Mr. Kim's vanity and ego” was more material to the co-conspirator charge than Rosen's political aims.

          Code Monkey like freedom / Code Monkey like peace and justice too
          Code Monkey very nerdy man / With big warm fuzzy bleeding heart
          Code Monkey like you!

          Formerly known as Jyrinx.

          by Code Monkey on Fri May 24, 2013 at 09:57:29 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You didn't read the specific law (0+ / 0-)

            he's charged with breaking:

            You might not agree with the law but it says this:

            (a) Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting
            the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation . . . obtains information concerning any  . . .  place in which any  . . .
            arms, munitions, or other materials or instruments for use in time of war are being made, prepared, repaired, stored, or are the subject of research or development,  . . . or

            (b) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent or reason to believe, copies, takes, makes, or obtains, or attempts to copy, take, make, or obtain, any sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, document, writing, or note of anything connected with the national defense; or

            (c) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, receives or obtains or
            agrees or attempts to receive or obtain from any person, or from any source whatever, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note, of anything connected with the national defense, knowing or having reason to believe, at the
            time he receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain it, that it has been or will be obtained, taken, made, or disposed of by any person contrary to the provisions of this chapter; or
            (d) or
            (e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or
            control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or
            ( . . .
            (g) If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the
            foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.

            So, basically Mr. Kim can be prosecuted for leaking a secret that he knew could bring harm to the U.S. and involving the location of munitions, namely by exposing operatives helping the U.S. foil bomb plots by revealing we had intercepted a bomb and were holding it in a specific place.

            And they are claiming Rosen became a co-conspirator to Mr. Kim when he then communicated the information to us.  

            So yes, his intent is important, but more important is that the affidavit focuses on a specific law (18 U.S.C. § 793 : US Code - Section 793: Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information) in claiming Mr. Rosen may be engaged in criminal activity.

            The Pentagon Papers didn't tell anyone where we were holding munitions.

            Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. Barack Obama

            by delphine on Fri May 24, 2013 at 10:49:16 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  ?? You're making my point. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              BradyB, deep info, aliasalias

              The government charges that Rosen broke the law not because he obtained and disseminated classified information for political purposes but because he did so at all.

              And the interpretation of the Espionage Act to apply to investigative reporting — even politically motivated such — is novel. Not even Nixon claimed the NYT broke the law by obtaining the Pentagon Papers.

              Code Monkey like freedom / Code Monkey like peace and justice too
              Code Monkey very nerdy man / With big warm fuzzy bleeding heart
              Code Monkey like you!

              Formerly known as Jyrinx.

              by Code Monkey on Fri May 24, 2013 at 11:32:53 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Wrong (0+ / 0-)

                They say he broke the law because the law specifically prohibits leaking information on MUNITIONS.

                The leak was about MUNITIONS.

                Specifically about MUNITIONS.

                The law is clear on that.  It has the word MUNITIONS in it.

                The leak was about the U.S. having intercepted a BOMB (which is a type of MUNITION).  

                In no event is it legal to leak information about MUNITIONS.

                And the law states that anyone who receives that information (about MUNITIONS) and disseminates it is guilty of the same crime.

                No, I did not make your point for you.  Had the leak been about someone lying about a break in, or a document stating that the government knew a decade earlier that a war could not be won, this law would not apply.  Because those are not about MUNITIONS.

                Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. Barack Obama

                by delphine on Fri May 24, 2013 at 11:38:32 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  We're talking past each other. (0+ / 0-)

                  My contention, having read the affidavit, is that the case for co-conspiracy against Rosen had nothing to do with his intentions or his profession but only the nature of the materials (classification, subject matter, etc.) he obtained. Do you agree?

                  Code Monkey like freedom / Code Monkey like peace and justice too
                  Code Monkey very nerdy man / With big warm fuzzy bleeding heart
                  Code Monkey like you!

                  Formerly known as Jyrinx.

                  by Code Monkey on Fri May 24, 2013 at 11:45:10 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Yes and no. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Tony Situ

                    Why was he so eager to report on this stuff?  He made it clear in his communications with Kim that he would take just about anything Kim had to offer, for political purposes - pushing the president in a particular direction.

                    Then, because he was so eager and so cajoling with Kim, Kim hands over information that the government now alleges was illegal to hand over.

                    What was his intention?  To expose some great wrong?  To make sure the government didn't get away with some lies or misbehavior?  

                    To put a stop to nasty CIA stuff like intercepting bombs meant for Americans?  And the rare infiltration of terrorist organizations?

                    Why did he sit on Kim for so long, grasping at the smallest straw?  Why was he so dogged?  

                    Because he has an agenda.  And his agenda put people in danger.  Because he reported without thinking.  

                    If you want to argue that the law that prevents people from telling the world about our weapons and defense apparatus is a bad law, or that journalists should be shielded even for that, feel free.

                    I disagree.

                    Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. Barack Obama

                    by delphine on Fri May 24, 2013 at 04:38:53 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  Munitions? Normally means US munitions. (0+ / 0-)

                  Reading the law to restrict information about foreign munitions is actually a stretch.  In what sense are foreign munitions part of  "the national defense"?

                  But, that said, the Espionage Act of 1917 was deliberately written to be vague, overbroad, and intimidating.  It's an unconstitutional pile of crap written for the purpose of intimidating peace protestors.

                  •  It specifically (0+ / 0-)

                    mentions "storage" of weapons.

                    Yes, you can argue that the intent was to keep folks from talking about the weapons we have, where they are, what we are developing.

                    In that case, though, it proves that journalists do not have carte blanche to report "anything" with impunity.

                    In this case reporting that we had the bomb was actually reporting that we had infiltrated a terrorist group, putting the work we were doing and the operatives involved in danger.

                    Whether you want to take a stand on that hill is up to you.  Personally I find exposing the government lying to us or covering up crimes a much more compelling case to shore up shield laws, than this assclown trying to goad Obama by putting people in harms way.  How does knowing we've intercepted a bomb via a mole affect our lives as American citizens to the extent that we need to put people in danger over it?

                    Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. Barack Obama

                    by delphine on Fri May 24, 2013 at 04:28:31 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

        •  evidence about what? (0+ / 0-)

          that the North Koreans are nut jobs that answer everything the civilized world tells them is unacceptable with more rounds of nuclear testing. Is this a shocking leak? Who in the hell doesn't know this? As Jon Steward said North Korea answers everything with nuclear testing. North Korea's economic policy is based on nuclear testing.

          Get a grip this is not a legitimate reality based 'national security' threat. Do we really l need to go into oh my god their gonna kill us mode? The have been doing this for decades and their is no news in Rosen's article other then here we go again fear mongering using the threat of the surreal bizarre state of north Korea. How come this is so scary and yet they are not AQ their just a nut job sad and tragic failed state.  

          No imminent threat but hey lets get Rosen and his source cause people will die and 'terrists are gonna kill yer family'. Are you addicted to fear? I think your fear is misdirected. Fear the beast that pumps out irrational fear of the other and yet is a clear and immanent danger to both humans and the planet.  That would be the US and the owners of the place. who do not serve our national interests or the interests of humans or the planet at large  

      •  Agreed. That's why I think it's gutsy for ... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wadingo, Tony Situ

        ... Holder to have done so. And politically correct, not reprehensible. Holder was right to put his name to the document, and not duck responsibility by assigning it to someone else. We know who's accountable.

        Unless your view is that there is no circumstance where a "secret" warrant can ever be issued against a member of the media, then Holder's involvement was appropriate.

        The critics must be mindful that two branches of government were directly involved. Representations were made by prosecutors. A Federal judge considered them and issued the warrants.

        Two considerations: the warrants were issued in 2010, and the State Department employee accused of disclosing national security matters was charged with a crime. (It is the court's tardy unsealing of the warrants that has generated the current publicity.)

        It may well be that further investigation and review of the case as it was being prepared for prosecution did not establish the reporter's active involvement as a "co-conspirator" or other kind of participant in the alleged crime. Or, that the prosecutor used his/her discretion not to charge the reporter. These kinds of field decisions are not unknown to criminal law.

        2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

        by TRPChicago on Fri May 24, 2013 at 09:56:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  None of that is what's objectionable. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Mr Robert, deep info

          What's objectionable is that Rosen is considered a possible co-conspirator merely for soliciting the information.

          Code Monkey like freedom / Code Monkey like peace and justice too
          Code Monkey very nerdy man / With big warm fuzzy bleeding heart
          Code Monkey like you!

          Formerly known as Jyrinx.

          by Code Monkey on Fri May 24, 2013 at 09:59:29 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't know whether that "merely" is correct. (0+ / 0-)

            We don't know much about this case. And that is much less than the government had reason to know in 2010. That said, you and I are not in much disagreement, I think.

            2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

            by TRPChicago on Fri May 24, 2013 at 10:02:47 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  If you look at the affidavit, (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Mr Robert, BradyB, deep info

              you can see the whole chain of reasoning. It's laid out particularly clearly on paragraph 39, page 26.

              http://apps.washingtonpost.com/...

              Well, okay, merely for soliciting and publishing the information. And possibly for appealing to Kim's ego (though I doubt that's a big part of the charge). Questions of his intent or his legitimacy as a reporter never enter into it.

              Code Monkey like freedom / Code Monkey like peace and justice too
              Code Monkey very nerdy man / With big warm fuzzy bleeding heart
              Code Monkey like you!

              Formerly known as Jyrinx.

              by Code Monkey on Fri May 24, 2013 at 10:06:27 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Ah, Ha! Three things jump out at me ... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Tony Situ

                1.The phrase - the Reporter "asked, solicited and encouraged Mr. Kim to disclose"  sensitive information, including defense intelligence information.

                2. The nature of the potential criminal charges against the reporter as "a co-conspirator and/or aider and abettor."

                3. The agent's representations (in para. 45) why he believed "voluntary production ... would be futile..." and "pose a substantial threat to the integrity of the investigation and of the evidence we seek to obtain by the warrant." Those are, to me, valid reasons for sealing the warrant.

                As to your concerns, I'm thinking the government is conceding that the Reporter is a member of the media and his intent is to call the government to task in a way that will scoop his competitors, a reasonable journalistic goal. But for me, legitimacy and intent don't protect these efforts in this case.

                According to the agent, the Reporter was actively encouraging breaches of national security. This is knowing and intentional conduct. It is active complicity, whether we characterize it as "co-conspiratorial" or just motivated by the desire for a scoop.

                Some of us might say that's how they want investigative reporters to be able to act and, accordingly, put them beyond the reach of virtually any warrant as was issued in this case. (And, inferentially, beyond any criminal culpability.) But I can't say that. Reporters who "solicit" breaches of security - and the perp was considered a weapons expert, as I recall - should be held responsible for what they do. If it's egregious enough, it can properly be considered criminal behavior.

                Do we really want such an open society that in the name of a search for today's truths, the laws need to encourage journalists to exploit vulnerable government officials? Private Manning comes to mind. And, if we equate bloggers with journalists for "accepted" media, the floodgates are open. The "publisher" will always claim higher purpose; must we always accept it?

                Journalists enjoy a high privilege in society. I don't think it needs to unbounded for them to function as a "free press."

                2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

                by TRPChicago on Fri May 24, 2013 at 12:32:47 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

  •  Correct, Jed, and thank you. n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Victor Ward

    "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 Fri May 24, 2013 at 08:21:42 AM PDT

  •  Ok - A little off topic - PBS the untouchables (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    aliasalias, 3goldens

    I just watched this show on PBS online
    Untouchables - PBS.org

    Then I do a little google search on this "asshat"
    Lanny Breuer - SHOULD BE JAILED

    Seriously
    DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS PEOPLE....PLEASE INVESTIGATE LANNY BREUER - AND JAIL HIM FOR HARM AGAINST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!

    Sorry for the caps locks - but this has got to be one of the biggest insider criminal conspiracy of them all!

    Takin it to the Streets! time to GOTV

    by totallynext on Fri May 24, 2013 at 08:25:59 AM PDT

  •  What is it about attorney generals (0+ / 0-)

    that makes them mostly suck? Obama need to correct this trend.

    Holder
    Gonzales
    Ashcroft
    Reno

    •  They are tasked with an impossible job (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      deep info

      They are expected to follow the law, produced by legislature, even if those laws have not yet been ruled constitutional, while also expected to follow the constitution itself.

      They do not have the capacity to make that determination on their own.  They certainly can have a strong opinion one way or the other, but they might make a decision that ends up being the dissenting opinion in a future SCOTUS ruling.

  •  Conservatives have a right to be pissed (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    happymisanthropy, Mr Robert

    As long as Holder is AG, Republicans will have ammo.  They have a legitimate complaint now.

    Corruption, bad decisions, and doubt about the Obama White House:  That's all they need to keep their jobs as obstructionists.

    As long as Holder is AG, they can validate their role as obstructionists and not lose the battle in the court of public opinion.

    Holder has to go.  He's a liability.

    On a side note:  This administration is trending towards the same path as the Bush Administration.  Public support early, a tight 2nd election, and then a horrible 2nd term that completely changed opinions against the party.  Democrats were able to take advantage, and there was a landslide election in 2008.

    "Courage is not a man with a gun in his hand. It's knowing you're licked before you begin but you begin anyway and you see it through no matter what."

    by peacemaker33 on Fri May 24, 2013 at 08:32:19 AM PDT

  •  The anti-Holder freak out continues. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jayjaybear, wadingo, Tony Situ

    I used to dislike Eric Holder but not so much anymore.
    The rightwing doesn't have a monopoly on paranoid
    fantasies.

    Fast and Furious

  •  We`ve lost the war (0+ / 0-)

    and now we are counting the casualties...

    I didn't abandon the fight, I abandoned the Party that abandoned the fight...

    by Jazzenterprises on Fri May 24, 2013 at 08:39:49 AM PDT

  •  To quote my brother in law (4+ / 0-)

    "They told me if I voted for Romney we'd have government spying on journalists".

  •  Soooo, we can issue a warrant for anyone who (6+ / 0-)

    happen to work anyplace else, but not one for a person who works for the press? Are people who work for the press above being issued a warrant? A suspected crook, is a suspected crook, no matter where they work.

  •  It's really impossible to defend Fox (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    flclarkkent, Tony Situ

    I'm not sure what's significant about Holder approving the warrant.

    When the AP story broke, some were citing DOJ regulations that Holder had to sign off on warrants because they thought that there would be a conflict of interest in that specific case. It turned out that Holder had recused himself.

    In this case, he's doing his job, and there is no need for recusal. The headline creates the impression he did something wrong.

    Anyone who props up will be burned by their stupid. They are hypocrites.

    Fox and furious friends wanted DOJ to prosecute the New York Times
    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    Fox Noise is a hack organization.

    DOJ Document Reveals Fox News Reporter James Rosen Wanted To Impact U.S. Foreign Policy

    <...>

    Let’s break some new, and expose muddle-headed policy when we see it – or force the administration’s hand to go in the right direction, if possible.

    Wait, what? Is that what a News reporter is supposed to do, force the administration’s hand to guide American foreign policy to the reporter’s whim? Separate and apart from the DOJ investigation, this email seems to indicate that James Rosen is not just a News reporter, but an activist intent on pushing his own agenda, with the stated goal of manipulating U.S. foreign policy

    http://www.mediaite.com/...

    For all we know, Fox was going to try to spin the country into a war.

    This is an organization that people have been accusing being a propaganda arm of the right wing for years. The irony of defending Fox isn't lost.

    Phone hacking: News International settles with victims - Thursday 19 January
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/...

    http://act.rootsaction.org/...

    Look at the gist of the current defense: We don't approve of Fox, but... Fox is horrible, but...James Rosen is an asshole, but...

    Defending a propaganda outlet in the face of its blatant hypocrisy.

    Also, why would anyone with serious intent leak classified information to Fox?

    •  Of Course Fox Is Trying to Spin Us into War (0+ / 0-)

      That is one of the major themes of their channel and has been since its inception.

      "I'll believe that corporations are people when I see Rick Perry execute one."

      by bink on Fri May 24, 2013 at 09:21:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I think the Justice Department had (0+ / 0-)

    probable cause that anyone related to Fox was up to no good.  I don't mind seeing Fox squirm a bit on this.

    Alternative rock with something to say: http://www.myspace.com/globalshakedown

    by khyber900 on Fri May 24, 2013 at 09:10:41 AM PDT

  •  This is a search warrant, not a subpoena (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    enemy of the people, Tony Situ
    It doesn't matter that Rosen hasn't been charged with a crime—the fact is that the search warrant accused him of criminal acts without giving him chance to respond to it before it was executed.
    You don't give the subject of a search warrant an opportunity to object because they might start destroying evidence.  There is also judicial oversight to prevent the process from being abused.

    This is ENTIRELY different than the AP subpoenas.  Please do not confuse them.

    I do not feel obligated to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use -- Galileo Galilei

    by ccyd on Fri May 24, 2013 at 10:20:05 AM PDT

  •  You guys sure buried this front page story quick.. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    3goldens
  •  The single most law ignorant thing ever posted (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jdsnebraska, Tony Situ
    It doesn't matter that Rosen hasn't been charged with a crime—the fact is that the search warrant accused him of criminal acts without giving him chance to respond to it before it was executed.
    That's how search warrants work.

    self-appointed intellectual cop

    by citizen k on Fri May 24, 2013 at 10:30:29 AM PDT

    •  nope (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      aliasalias

      To obtain a search warrant is to find evidence that a crime was committed.  The leaker committed the crime but not the journalist, so the warrant is illegal.  They can get a warrant for the communications of the leaker.

      If one of my friends is a dope dealer the government cannot get a warrant for my communications for his illegal act.

      Call your representative and senators and the white house (lack of capitalization intended) to STOP this crazy warmongering with Iran, please.

      by Indiana Bob on Fri May 24, 2013 at 11:05:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  nope (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jdsnebraska, Tony Situ

        that's not how it works. If the government can show probable cause that the search warrant will uncover evidence of a crime, the target can be anyone. So if your drug dealer friend boasts to you about his illegal gains, the govt. could tap your phone.

        And, in this case, there is obviously probable cause that the Fox "journalist" broke the law too.

        self-appointed intellectual cop

        by citizen k on Fri May 24, 2013 at 11:09:20 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No, that is not how the first amendment works (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          deep info, aliasalias

          As stated by Chief Justice Hughes in Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697, 719-720:

          While reckless assaults upon public men, and efforts to bring obloquy upon those who are endeavoring faithfully to discharge official duties, exert a baleful influence and deserve the severest condemnation in public opinion, it cannot be said that this abuse is greater, and it is believed to be less, than that which characterized the period in which our institutions took shape. Meanwhile, the administration of government has become more complex, the opportunities for malfeasance and corruption have multiplied, crime has grown to most serious proportions, and the danger of its protection by unfaithful officials and of the impairment of the fundamental security of life and property by criminal alliances and official neglect, emphasizes the primary need of a vigilant and courageous press, especially in great cities. The fact that the liberty of the press may be abused by miscreant purveyors of scandal does not make any the less necessary the immunity of the press from previous restraint in dealing with official misconduct.

          Call your representative and senators and the white house (lack of capitalization intended) to STOP this crazy warmongering with Iran, please.

          by Indiana Bob on Fri May 24, 2013 at 12:06:28 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  To confuse Daniel Ellsberg with Fox is impressive (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    enemy of the people

    Wow.

    self-appointed intellectual cop

    by citizen k on Fri May 24, 2013 at 10:35:34 AM PDT

    •  that doesn't matter (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      deep info, aliasalias

      If it was Satan was the journalist and Jesus Christ was the leaker, then Satan could not be prosecuted for Jesus Christ leaking classified information to him.  

      That is what the first amendment says whether we like the actors or not.

      Call your representative and senators and the white house (lack of capitalization intended) to STOP this crazy warmongering with Iran, please.

      by Indiana Bob on Fri May 24, 2013 at 11:00:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Daniel Ellsberg was not a journalist (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        deep info

        there is no special constitutional protection for journalists to violate secrecy laws. There is a often used successful defense if the leak was in the public interest and exposed government malfeasance. That is why Ellsberg was hard to prosecute and Scooter Libby was easy to prosecute.

        self-appointed intellectual cop

        by citizen k on Fri May 24, 2013 at 11:05:25 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  no , you are wrong (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          deep info

          The court held in the Ellsberg case that the government could not go after publishers of information, only the sources of them.

          Here is J. Dougless' concurring opinion with regard to the Espionage act being applied to journalists:

          Thus, it is apparent that Congress was capable of, and did, distinguish between publishing and communication in the various sections of the Espionage Act

          Call your representative and senators and the white house (lack of capitalization intended) to STOP this crazy warmongering with Iran, please.

          by Indiana Bob on Fri May 24, 2013 at 12:02:49 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  indeed (0+ / 0-)

            so Douglas argued that the government could not get an injunction to block publication.

            And the government has not sought an injunction to block publication.

            self-appointed intellectual cop

            by citizen k on Fri May 24, 2013 at 12:23:26 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  It's actually worth looking at what Douglas wrote (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Tony Situ
            There are numerous sets of this material in existence, and they apparently are not under any controlled custody. Moreover, the President has sent a set to the Congress. We start, then, with a case where there already is rather wide distribution of the material that is destined for publicity, not secrecy. I have gone over the material listed in the in camera brief of the United States. It is all history, not future events. None of it is more recent than 1968.
            To get from that to a prohibition on a search warrant for violation of secrecy on CURRENT secrets involving nuclear weapons in the hands of North Korea takes a huge jump.

            self-appointed intellectual cop

            by citizen k on Fri May 24, 2013 at 12:43:38 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, that you are right (0+ / 0-)

          Ellsberg indeed was not a journalist, so he had far fewer protections that a journalist would had.

          Call your representative and senators and the white house (lack of capitalization intended) to STOP this crazy warmongering with Iran, please.

          by Indiana Bob on Fri May 24, 2013 at 12:16:13 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  That is a dangerous doctrine (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            deep info

            because it opens up to arguments that whistleblowing by a blogger is not an exercise of first amendment rights because journalists are somehow uniquely privileged

            self-appointed intellectual cop

            by citizen k on Fri May 24, 2013 at 12:24:52 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  No, a blogger is a journalist (0+ / 0-)

              By every definition.  They are publishing.  That counts.

              It is completely appropriate for the government to go after those who leak classified information to the press.  But the DOJ is trying to count the press as co-conspirators and that is not what the first amendment is all about.

              Now what the US does, and this certainly didn't start with President Obama but continues under him, is over-classify.  Basically if something may look bad for the US, it is classified even if it is not protecting state secrets.

              The FOIA mitigates this a little, but we need a different way to classify thing so an objective party can determine things that are just embarrassing but not classified or secret.

              Call your representative and senators and the white house (lack of capitalization intended) to STOP this crazy warmongering with Iran, please.

              by Indiana Bob on Sat May 25, 2013 at 08:23:03 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

                •  Thanks for the link (0+ / 0-)

                  I disagree with the ruling in this case, just as many others cited in the article have.  There are states that have criminal defamation laws, Montana is one of them, but there are not any Federal defamation laws.  So in this case it appears to be a civil matter since she is sued for money and not by the state for a crime.

                  I hope she wins on appeal.

                  Call your representative and senators and the white house (lack of capitalization intended) to STOP this crazy warmongering with Iran, please.

                  by Indiana Bob on Sat May 25, 2013 at 11:24:32 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

  •  I'm still on the fence about this.. (0+ / 0-)

    On the one hand, I strongly believe in the freedom of the press.

    On the other, I don't believe that means they can act with impunity.

    Having a 100% get-out-of-jail-free card means anyone could leak classified info, and as long as they put it up on a blog, they are safe.  Even if putting it up on a blog was the means they used to give it to the exact people that are the threat.

    If Rosen is not going to be pursued for criminal charges, and the warrant is being used only to build evidence against the leaker, then I don't see a problem here.  Rosen may be using a press shield to keep his butt out of jail, but that doesn't mean the paper trail he left behind can't be used.

    •  Clinton's administration was paralyzed (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Tony Situ

      by RW and self-promoting bureaucrats leaks to the corporate press. Obama/Holder are not interested in going down the same path. This is why Keller was calling for the return of Ken Starr recently. The press hates Democrats governing.

      self-appointed intellectual cop

      by citizen k on Fri May 24, 2013 at 10:46:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  If Fox "News" is committing espionage, then let's (0+ / 0-)

    prosecute the hell out of them.

    I just don't get what the issue is here.

    Or is it that the DC stenographers think they are above the law?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site